BOARD MEETING.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR
1001 I STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007
9:00 A.M.
TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 12277
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson
Ms. Judith G. Case
Ms. Dorene D'Adamo
Ms. Lydia Kennard
Mr. Jerry Hill
Mrs. Barbara Riordan
Dr. Daniel Sperling
STAFF
Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel
Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer
Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman
Mr. Alvaro Alvarado, Ph.D., Health and Ecosystems
Assessment Section, Research Division
Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary
Mr. Richard Corey, Assistant Chief, RD
Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Stationary Source Division
Mr. Robert D. Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division
Ms. Narcisco Gonzalez, Air Pollution Specialist,
Stationary Source Divsion
Mr. Kurt Karperos, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation
Planning Branch, PTSD
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
STAFF
Mr. Rob Oglesby, Legislative Director, Office of
Legislative Affairs
Ms. Cherie Rainforth, Manager, Control Strategies Section,
SSD
Mr. Todd Sterling, Air Pollution Specialist, Control
Strategies Section, SSD
Mr. Dennis Wade, Air Pollution Specialist, Air Quality and
Transportation Planning Branch
ALSO PRESENT
Ms. Nidia Bautista, Coalition for Clean Air
Mr. Todd Campbell, Clean Energy
Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air
Mr. Manuel Cunya
Mr. Francisco Dacosta, Director, Environmental Justice
Advocacy
Mr. Mike Eaves, California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets Coalition
Mr. Randal Friedman, U.S. Navy
Mr. Jim Ganduglia, California Trucking Association
Mr. Marc Geller, Plug In America
Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, ALA
Bishop Ernest Jackson, Grace Tabernacle Community Church
Ms. Sara Jackson, Earth Justice
Mr. Kurt Karperos, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation
Planning Branch, PTSD
Mr. Mark Keppler, The Maddy Institute
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. David Lighthall, Central Valley Wealth Policy
Institute at CSU, Fresno
Mr. Bill Magavern, Sierra Club of California
Mr. Paul Martin, Western United Dairymen
Mr. Christopher Muhammad
Mr. Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty and the
Environment
Mr. Nick Robinson
Mr. Seyed Sadredin, San Joaquin Valley APCD
Ms. Sarah Sharpe, Coalition for Clean Air
Mr. Ron Silva, Westar Transport
Ms. Carolina Simunovic, Fresno Metro Ministry
Ms. Daniella Simunovic, Center on Race, Poverty and the
Environment
Ms. Kate Stevens, Office of Community and Economic
Development
Mr. Mark Sweeney, NGV American
Mr. Alvin Valeriano
Mr. Peter Weber, California Partnership in SJV
Mr. Paul Wuebben, South Coast AQMD
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
INDEX
PAGE
Pledge of Allegiance 1
Item 7-11-1
Chairperson Nichols 2
Executive Officer Goldstene 3
Staff Presentation 4
Q&A 9
Mr. Dacosta 17
Mr. Muhammad 18
Bishop Jackson 21
Q&A 23
Item 7-10-6
Chairperson Nichols 26
Executive Officer Goldstene 26
Staff Presentation 27
Q&A 40
Motion 44
Ombudsman Quentin 52
Ex Partes 52
Vote 55
Item 7-11-4
Chairperson Nichols 57
Board Member D'Adamo 58
Board Member Case 60
Executive Officer Goldstene 61
Staff Presentation 62
Mr. Lighthall 91
Ms. Holmes-Gen 94
Mr. Newell 97
Mr. Carmichael 99
Mr. Robinson 101
Ms. Simunovic 104
Ms. Simunovic 108
Mr. Silva 112
Ms. Stevens 114
Mr. Valeriano 117
Ms. Sharpe 119
Ms. Bautista 122
Mr. Ganduglia 126
Mr. Keppler 128
Mr. Edgar 131
Mr. Weber 135
Ms. Jackson 140
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
INDEX CONTINUED
PAGE
Mr. Cunya 143
Mr. Martin 147
Q&A 153
Item 7-11-5
Chairperson Nichols 175
Motion 175
Vote 175
Item 7-11-6
Chairperson Nichols 176
Executive Officer Goldstene 176
Staff Presentation 178
Q&A 189
Mr. Wuebben 192
Mr. Magavern 194
Mr. Campbell 202
Mr. Eaves 207
Mr. Sweeney 210
Mr. Friedman 213
Mr. Geller 215
Mr. Carmichael 217
Ms. Holmes-Gen 219
Q&A 223
Motion 231
Vote 233
Item 07-11-3
Chairperson Nichols 234
Staff Presentation 234
Public Comment
Mr. Carmichael 254
Adjournment 259
Reporter's Certificate 260
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good morning, ladies and
3 gentlemen. We're going to get our meeting underway.
4 We're still assembling, but we have a quorum and we need
5 the get the business part of the meeting going.
6 So I will start now by declaring that this
7 meeting is called to order. And we will begin the with
8 Pledge of Allegiance.
9 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was
10 Recited in unison.)
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And now the clerk of the
12 Board will call the roll.
13 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg?
14 Supervisor Case?
15 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Here.
16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo?
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.
18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill?
19 SUPERVISOR HILL: Here.
20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard?
21 Mayor Loveridge?
22 Mrs. Riordan?
23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts?
25 Professor Sperling?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here.
2 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols?
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Here.
4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols, we have a
5 quorum.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
7 I should announce here at the beginning of the
8 meeting that although there is an item on the agenda for a
9 closed session, which we always put out in case we need
10 it, that we are not planning to have a closed session
11 today.
12 I want to make sure that if there's anybody who's
13 not familiar with the procedures here, that they know that
14 if they wish to testify on any item, they should see the
15 clerk of the Board over here in front and pick up a
16 card -- a speaker card. And to make sure that anyone who
17 is planning to speak understands that we generally impose
18 a three-minute time limit on all speakers as a way to make
19 sure that we get through the business of the day.
20 If you have written testimony, we will read it.
21 And we would appreciate it if you could just summarize it.
22 It will be entered into the record.
23 I also need to point out that there are exits at
24 the back of the room. In the event of a fire, we're
25 required to evacuate the room immediately by going
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 downstairs. And that hasn't happened to us so far, happy
2 to say. But it's important that we be prepared, as recent
3 events have showed us, emergencies strike when you're not
4 ready for them.
5 Good morning.
6 Okay. We will begin with our first item, which
7 is the health update.
8 And I'll turn it over to the staff.
9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you. Good
10 morning.
11 In previous health updates, staff has presented
12 results on the effects of air pollution on health outcomes
13 in the general adult population and in children. Today,
14 staff will focus on studies that describe disparities and
15 exposure to air pollution in poor and minority communities
16 and how these disproportionate exposures may lead to
17 adverse health outcomes.
18 These studies exam the effects of particulate
19 matter, air toxics, and traffic-related pollutants on
20 infants and children living in environmental justice
21 communities, especially those located near roadways. The
22 findings suggest an association between air pollution and
23 birth outcomes and academic performance of students. It's
24 ARB's goal to ensure that all Californians can live in a
25 healthful environment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 Dr. Alvaro Alvarado from our Health and Exposure
2 Assessment Branch will make the staff presentation.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene.
4 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
5 Presented as follows.)
6 --o0o--
7 MR. ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. Good
8 morning, Chairman Nichols and members of the Board. In
9 this health update, I'll discuss the results of three
10 recent studies evaluating the association between air
11 pollution exposures and health outcomes in relation to
12 environmental justice.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. ALVARADO: Senate bill 115 defines
15 environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of
16 all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the
17 development of environmental laws, regulations, and
18 policies. In addition, the Board approved environmental
19 justice policies in 2001 to establish a framework for
20 incorporating environmental justice into all of ARB's
21 programs.
22 Minority and low income communities report and
23 research suggests that some neighborhoods experience
24 higher air pollution exposures than others. These
25 exposures are a result of the cumulative impacts of air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 pollution from multiple sources.
2 The issue of environmental justice raises the
3 challenging question of whether disparities in
4 environmental exposures result in unequal health outcomes.
5 Today's health update will present recent findings from
6 three studies investigating this question.
7 --o0o--
8 MR. ALVARADO: Results from two of these studies
9 are summarized here. The first study was conducted by
10 researchers at UCLA. They examined the association
11 between traffic density and increased risk of pre-term
12 births in Los Angeles County. The investigators found
13 that traffic-related air pollution disproportionately
14 affected neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and
15 unemployment. For example, low socioeconomic status
16 neighborhoods near high traffic areas showed a 30 percent
17 increased likelihood of pre-term births compared to low
18 traffic neighborhoods for all women.
19 In another study, researchers from Yale
20 University investigated the association between maternal
21 exposure to air pollution and birth weight. This research
22 was conducted in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the
23 investigators found an association between PM2.5 exposure
24 and low birth weight for all mowers. However, they found
25 an even greater effect for infants of African American
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 mothers compared to white mothers.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. ALVARADO: While children's health is
4 certainly affected by the air quality in their homes and
5 neighborhoods, they spend much of their day in school. In
6 this study, the investigators examined the link between
7 school performance and the risk of adverse respiratory
8 outcomes among school children in the Los Angeles Unified
9 School District.
10 School performance was measured by the Academic
11 Performance Index, which is based on standardized tests
12 administered to students in grades two through twelve.
13 The results from this study suggest that there is a
14 decrease in the performance of schools located in census
15 tracts with the highest respiratory risk, and schools with
16 the highest proportion of Latino and African American
17 students had the highest respiratory risk.
18 While many factors contribute to a child's
19 educational achievem4ent, the disparity in academic
20 performance associated with respiratory risk persists even
21 after controlling for factors that traditionally influence
22 educational achievement.
23 --o0o--
24 MR. ALVARADO: ARB has a number of studies
25 underway in environmental justice communities. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 deployed a network of monitors near the ports of L.A. and
2 Long Beach to evaluate the air pollution in harbor
3 communities. The ARB is also developing health risk
4 assessments for several rail yards across the state.
5 We are conducting modeling studies to estimate
6 the health risks from diesel exhaust in West Oakland. In
7 this study, we will estimate the impact of diesel
8 particulate matter emissions from the Port of Oakland,
9 marine vessels in the San Francisco Bay, and locomotive
10 and truck activity.
11 The ARB is also funding several studies on
12 children with asthma, including some from areas of lower
13 socioeconomic status in both northern and southern
14 California, as well as in the Central Valley. The names
15 of the studies are listed on this slide.
16 --o0o--
17 MR. ALVARADO: Additional studies funded by the
18 ARB are shown on this slide. We have contracted with
19 researchers to investigate the association between air
20 pollution and birth outcomes in poor and minority
21 communities.
22 In Oakland, our contractors are working with the
23 organization Communities for a Better Environment to map
24 West Oakland with handheld GPS units. As shown in the
25 photograph, community members were recruited to locate
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 emission sources and places frequented by children and the
2 elderly in their neighborhood.
3 We are working with researchers to develop an
4 environmental justice screening tool. The tool will map
5 the sources of air pollution and the demographic profile
6 of neighborhoods throughout the state. And, finally, as
7 part of the Governor's report on Climate Scenarios, ARB is
8 working with researchers to estimate the impacts of global
9 climate change on environmental justice communities in
10 California.
11 --o0o--
12 MR. ALVARADO: The results of these studies
13 presented today and others add to the body of evidence
14 suggesting that disparities in environmental exposures
15 remain, which demonstrates a continued need to include
16 environmental justice in the development of environmental
17 laws, regulations, and policies.
18 ARB is currently engaged in a number of efforts
19 to improve local air quality, such as the Goods Movement
20 Emission Reduction Program. We will also continue to
21 investigate how air pollution affects residents of low
22 income and minority neighborhoods as part of our research
23 on vulnerable populations, and to incorporate these
24 programs in our programs -- to incorporate these findings
25 in our programs.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 This concludes the health update, and we'd be
2 happy to answer any questions.
3 Thank you very much.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.
5 Do Board members have any questions about the
6 research?
7 Yes.
8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have a request.
9 On slide three there are two studies that are
10 highlighted. Which was in California?
11 MR. ALVARADO: California was the top study.
12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: The top study?
13 MR. ALVARADO: And it -- yes, it was in Los
14 Angeles.
15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Was it just a huge, huge
16 study? What I'm leading to is I'd like to look at that
17 study if it's not something that's just --
18 MR. ALVARADO: I'll be happy to send it to you.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. I
20 appreciate that.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Other Board member
22 questions?
23 I think generally speaking, from what I can tell,
24 ARB has probably the most robust program in this area of
25 any agency in the country, if not in the world. It's not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 huge. But the research that we have funded has been
2 significant research, and has really helped pinpoint these
3 issues. And I think it's something that we've gotten
4 positive feedback on from the communities that are most at
5 risk, and I'm certainly pleased with that.
6 I'm also pleased with the fact that you're
7 looking for ways to incorporate this research, so that
8 it's not just a matter of saying things are bad but
9 hopefully really trying to develop some strategies that
10 can help pinpoint it.
11 And I'm particularly pleased that the Research
12 Division is looking at ways that we can tie global air
13 pollution issues to these community-based issues. Because
14 even though we recognize that the greenhouse gas emissions
15 are going to affect people the world over, we know that on
16 a worldwide basis poor communities are the ones that are
17 going to be the most impacted by sea level rise, by
18 changes in temperatures and so forth. And so it may be
19 that we are paving the way for something that can have
20 relevance in other places as well.
21 So I just really want to commend you on the work
22 and to encourage you to keep on making sure that we are
23 made aware of it as it moves forward and not just through
24 these kind of periodic updates. But also, you know, if
25 significant work comes in, to make the Board members aware
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 of it.
2 Okay. Any other -- yes.
3 No? Okay.
4 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Just one comment.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
6 BOARD MEMBER CASE: You know, what's amazing is
7 to see an added impact on newborns in areas that are close
8 to high density traffic. Is there anything that's
9 happening in terms of trying to -- as I traveled to
10 Sacramento, I just noticed how many housing subdivisions
11 are being lined up right next to Highway 99. And I
12 believe I recently read that Los Angeles Unified decided
13 not to place two schools at the intersection of several
14 freeways.
15 But I think we should be looking in terms of
16 where the Legislature is for making those connections
17 also. Because as a local elected official in the county
18 we don't do a lot of permitting of housing subdivisions.
19 That really happens in the cities. But the cities
20 continue to just move forward and permit large
21 subdivisions next to big highway systems. And maybe that
22 needs to somehow be a connection to get this type of
23 research into the cities through the League of Cities, is
24 one opportunity. Because I'm very troubled when I see
25 subdivisions continuing to be built adjacent to highways.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 That puts those families at great risk. And often it is
2 the affordable housing that's going there as opposed to
3 the higher-end housing. So I think anything we can do to
4 connect that would be really important.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: There is a land-use
6 handbook that was prepared by the Air Board, which I know
7 has been put out. But I understand that it's not
8 necessarily being used as well as it should be. I don't
9 know if anybody wants to comment on that. But my
10 impression is that although there are some community
11 groups that use it or try to use it in the context of
12 permitting proceedings, by that point it's often kind of
13 an adversarial process. And that what we really need to
14 be doing is getting upfront earlier with the land use
15 planning agencies and getting them to look not only at
16 locations but also design of projects.
17 I mean the case of the schools, for example, you
18 know, there's a 500-foot rule, which I believe is now law,
19 that you can't site a school within 500 -- a new school
20 within 500 feet of a freeway.
21 But in places like Los Angeles where it's very
22 congested, you know, maybe you put the back of the school
23 where there's, you know, walls close to the freeway and
24 have the place where the children might be outside being
25 exposed, you know, on the other side. There's still more
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 research to be done I think in the area of what barriers
2 and physical changes -- I know there's some research out
3 there about sound walls; you know, if they're huge enough,
4 you know, they can maybe make a difference. But I think
5 this is an area where there is really more work that needs
6 to be done.
7 BOARD MEMBER CASE: My suggestion would be is to
8 work through League of Cities. And I assume there's an
9 organization for elected school boards, that working
10 through those entities and educating those who are policy
11 makers might have a greater impact than working with the
12 planners, because the planners are going to move forward
13 with whatever gets put before them in terms of projects.
14 And I think the policy makers really need to make that
15 statement clearly when they can see this correlation
16 between location of housing and schools adjacent to
17 highways on both unborn children as well as the lungs of
18 the children that are at those schools or homes.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chairman, our
20 advisory document that you referenced is an excellent one,
21 and the staff worked hard to disseminate that information.
22 And just recently I had a conversation with our new
23 Executive Officer and explaining to him from the local
24 government viewpoint. We have to continually disseminate
25 that information. Because recognize your council members
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 change ever two or four years. Your boards of supervisors
2 change, and when they change, planning commissions change,
3 planning directors can change. It's an evolution, and we
4 just have to stay on top of it. And our document I
5 thought was wonderful because it got very specific about
6 the advice, how many feet, how many yards, how many -- and
7 I think it's still relevant today. Doesn't probably need
8 much updating at all. It's just we've got to get it out
9 to all the new people who are in elective office and their
10 planning commissioners and their planning directors.
11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If I could
12 just -- brief comment.
13 We did do an outreach in conjunction with CAPCOA
14 after the Board adopted that guidance, and it was
15 specifically designed for local government officials. But
16 I think it's time to do that again. And CAPCOA was very
17 helpful exerting leadership at the local level. So that
18 would be my suggestion.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'd appreciate that.
20 There's definitely a role for CAPCOA given their
21 membership is made up of local elected officials. So
22 that's great.
23 SUPERVISOR HILL: Madam Chair?
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, please.
25 SUPERVISOR HILL: If I could just add.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 You know, it seems at our last meeting or the
2 previous meeting to that we talked about this issue. And
3 if I remember correctly -- you know, we're struggling as
4 local officials with the transit-oriented development
5 concept, and that's exactly where people in local
6 government is looking at especially in the urban areas to
7 place housing and mixed use, you know, some commercial,
8 but housing especially in those transit corridors. And
9 just reinforcing, I think we need as much help as we can
10 and guidance so that we don't make the mistakes that can
11 cause and aggravate the problems we're just discussing in
12 the review.
13 So if I could get a copy of that land-use
14 handbook, I would appreciate it too. So thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yeah, I think continued
16 efforts to find ways to get the information out and to do
17 training on it where it's appropriate would be really an
18 important avenue.
19 Also, I'm sure we're going to be talking about
20 this as we move forward in implementation of AB 32. But
21 putting together the scoping plan for AB 32 has made it
22 clear that the Air Board has to play a more assertive role
23 than it has before in really identifying the relationship
24 between land-use patterns and increases in vehicle miles
25 traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, which obviously
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 affects conventional air pollution as well.
2 So I think this is an area where you're going to
3 see an increasing presence on the part of the Air Board.
4 Yes.
5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I degree. And I'm
6 just thinking, as the information goes out, that it should
7 also include a statement that there is expected to be
8 perhaps some action along the lines of incorporating
9 climate change, you know, at some point into the document
10 to get folks realizing that, you know, we're not just
11 talking about criteria pollutants here and this is a
12 long-term process.
13 A suggestion that I would have -- I imagine that
14 there's a planners association and that they probably get
15 together annually to have conferences. Maybe if there's a
16 way we could get on their agenda and disseminate the
17 information -- the document and also the message about
18 climate change.
19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: We actually have
20 done that in the past, so we can do it again.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We have a card that's just
22 come in. This is not a public comment hearing item, but
23 we do welcome comments from the public. And there is one
24 card here from Mr. Dacosta.
25 You can come forward and speak at the microphone
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 here.
2 Is it on this item?
3 Yes. Did you have a comment on this item?
4 MR. DACOSTA: Yes, ma'am.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.
6 MR. DACOSTA: My name is Francisco Dacosta. I'm
7 the Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy. And I was
8 listening to some of your comments as to how air pollution
9 and other pollution adversely impacts people of color.
10 And while I was listening to your comments, as the
11 Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy -- and I'm
12 headquartered in San Francisco -- one of the things that
13 the public where there are people of color or they live
14 anywhere, like, for example, in San Francisco, we need to
15 have empirical data about cumulative pollution. And while
16 somehow some of you policy makers are focused on
17 particulates, especially PM2.5, we in San Francisco and
18 the Bayview -- and that's why some of us have come all the
19 way here to testify, and Supervisor Hill has heard me
20 before and I've seen him before and he more or less knows
21 what I stand for. I'm here to state to you in your policy
22 making that you need to pay attention to cumulative
23 pollution; and when it comes to the Bayview, radiological
24 elements, heavy metals that affect our children.
25 So what happens is we could be speaking about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 climate change, global warming, in the future the oceans
2 and the seas rising. But our immediate concern is the
3 health of our children. Hundreds and hundreds of our
4 children are dying. And this element of compassion for
5 our children should be incorporated into your policies.
6 Now, I was born in Africa and I've traveled all
7 over the world. I've written extensively on global
8 climate change to my website. But I'm here to tell you
9 that as I listen to some sort of vague and general
10 statements about particulates, we need to pay attention to
11 cumulative pollution.
12 Thank you very much.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Dacosta.
14 We also have a card from Christopher Muhammad.
15 MR. MUHAMMAD: Board members, I came here today
16 because of the subject matter, environmental justice. And
17 of great concern is what is taking place in San Francisco,
18 where a corporation went into an already impacted
19 community and began to develop on a former or actually
20 current superfund site in Bayview Hunters Point that had
21 historically been the site of nuclear testing, nuclear
22 waste from World War II. This site is on the EPA
23 superfund site. And this community has been continuously
24 bombarded with asbestos levels that are horrific.
25 Yet all of the regulatory bodies have appeared to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 look the other way because of this corporation that
2 appears to have purchased silence and capitulation on so
3 many levels. I'm speaking of the Lanar Corporation, that
4 has been a bad actor in other parts of this state and,
5 quite frankly, a bad actor all over this country. Yet in
6 San Francisco there's been no concern appeared to have
7 been raised regarding asbestos levels that have reached
8 into 80,000 particulates per square meter, 50,000, 60,000,
9 yet the Cal/EPA says there's no safe levels of asbestos
10 exposure for residents. Yet in San Francisco, 10, 20 feet
11 away from this superfund site children are being exposed
12 to horrific levels of asbestos and no one seems to care.
13 The air quality district, the Bay Area Air
14 Quality Management District violated Lanar for over 380
15 days of willful and intentional violations, yet to this
16 day they've not been filed one dollar.
17 I am heartened by the recent ruling of the air
18 board -- district in San Francisco, the Bay Area Air
19 District, in which they agreed that they would fine Lanar
20 the maximum penalty. Our concern is that Lanar is not
21 able to lobby and push their weight on this body to
22 hopefully minimize and blunt any kind of regulatory action
23 that you may take to allow a corporation to come in in a
24 community that's one of the highest asthmatic rates in the
25 country, highest cancer rate, highest bronchitis and other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 respiratory problems.
2 The San Francisco School Board passed a unanimous
3 resolution calling for the immediate work stoppage of that
4 work going on out there.
5 So there's a number of issues that are impacting
6 this community. But none more important than what's
7 happening right here in San Francisco, California, where
8 we have the EPA, the ATSDR, all of them headquartered two
9 miles from this community, yet we're talking about oil
10 spills but nobody's talking about children being impacted
11 by a rogue company that has literally poisoned this
12 community with untold amounts of asbestos, not monitored,
13 not regulated, and it appears to be getting away with
14 literal murder.
15 So I hope that this body as you're deliberating
16 will consider the issue of Bayview Hunters Point and the
17 Lanar Corporation.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Muhammad.
20 Thank you for making the trip up here to keep us informed
21 and on target with what the real issues are in front of
22 us.
23 I just wanted to comment, both of you made
24 statements about cumulative impacts. And we are --
25 obviously the Air Resources Board, we're here focused on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 air quality. And yet we have to be mindful when we do
2 health risk assessments of any type that people don't just
3 breathe one pollutant at a time and they're not just
4 exposed through one mechanism at a time. It is a matter
5 of overall body burden and public health that we're
6 dealing with here. I think that's one of the reasons why
7 the kind of research that was being reported on here is so
8 important, is that it helps to filter out the other types
9 of exposures and focus just on the air. But that's for
10 the purpose of telling us hopefully what we can do better
11 in our jobs to make sure that we're doing everything we
12 can to address the real public health concerns here.
13 So I really do appreciate your concern on this
14 issue and your coming here today.
15 Is there anybody else who wished to comment on
16 this item?
17 Yes, sir.
18 MR. JACKSON: Good morning, Chairman and Board
19 members. I am Bishop Ernest Jackson, and I pastor Grace
20 Tabernacle Community Church, which is located in Bayview
21 Hunters Point and is considered to be at ground zero of
22 this Lanar construction that's going on. And I have
23 personally witnessed the effects that Lanar Corporation
24 has had on the people in this community as well as people
25 in my congregation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 On many occasions I'm called to the emergency
2 room where many people are sick and suffering and they're
3 members in the community and of my church. And they are
4 being significantly impacted almost on a daily basis by
5 the work that is going on.
6 What really disheartens me the most is that after
7 exhausting all of our efforts even up to the Mayor's
8 Office, to the Board of Supervisors, to Department of
9 Public Health, and to the different air quality boards in
10 the EPA, we have had very little support in terms of
11 getting some results. And we feel that these issues need
12 to be raised at the highest level because children are
13 dying. We are now looking retrospectively at a lot of
14 people that we felt that just had asthma for -- congenital
15 asthma, other reasons. Now the environment has -- we know
16 that the environment has significantly affected them.
17 There are other biological issues that are
18 affecting these residents as well and is yet to be
19 determined because we cannot get the Department of Public
20 Health to do an adequate assessment. And they have
21 actually downgraded the effects that this construction has
22 had on the residents.
23 We are in urgent need of your help and your
24 support, that you would take this to heart and put it on
25 your agenda and even have further exploration and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 discussion about this.
2 We are coming to you as all independent citizens
3 and very concerned citizens. And we feel that if we can
4 just get the ear of someone that will rise to the
5 occasion, that we can get some action done.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
8 Mr. Hill -- Supervisor, did you want to comment
9 on --
10 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I
11 would like to.
12 And this issue has been thoroughly exhausted by
13 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board, San
14 Francisco Public Health, and the EPA, have all looked at
15 the subject and the ground level asbestos that is
16 occurring during the construction project and the moving
17 of the earth that's going on there.
18 The timing of the project and when the -- the
19 monitors that the air district has installed at the
20 project are also, I guess I should say, many more in the
21 quantity than is required and the level of asbestos that
22 would determine and trigger work stoppages is at a level
23 that is much lower than would be the normal standard.
24 They've been monitoring it.
25 One of the questions that came up at our recent
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 meeting, they had -- in fact, I asked for question of how
2 many complaints were raised. And Mr. Muhammad mentioned
3 that there's a school at the location and he made
4 references to the number of children, and there were no
5 complaints registered. And there were two complaints that
6 were received by the air district over this issue.
7 And they have been thoroughly analyzing the
8 public health hazard of any -- whenever it would occur.
9 And I think we're all sensitive to the issues that we
10 heard in the health report today. And I can assure this
11 Board that the air district is watching this very closely
12 and carefully. And whatever penalties that are in order
13 will be -- and sanctions will definitely be rendered to
14 the construction company and Lanar in this regard. So
15 they --
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I appreciate hearing
17 that. One of the things I think that is expected of us
18 because of the Air Resources Board's overarching role in
19 air quality is that we will monitor the activities of
20 local districts and try to make sure that we're keeping a
21 high level of concern and focus, as we're going to be
22 spending a good deal of time later today on the San
23 Joaquin Valley. And we often hear from the South Coast on
24 specific issues that they need. I haven't heard so much,
25 at least since I've been here, about issues in the Bay
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 Area. So I think it is of interest to know that there is
2 a well-organized and well-focused community there that has
3 been seeking and demanding real vigilance on the part of
4 air quality officials.
5 SUPERVISOR HILL: And because of that, Madam
6 Chair, that is why the air district has taken I think
7 extraordinary steps to monitor this carefully, to make
8 sure that there is no health risk occurring because of the
9 excavation and the construction that's going on in that
10 project.
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I appreciate that.
12 We've now been put on notice that there is this
13 concern. So I think we'll just, you know, continue to
14 watch the situation and appreciate your vigilance.
15 SUPERVISOR HILL: I would be happy to make sure
16 that the Executive Director gets a report from the air
17 district as to what the circumstances are around that.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think we would appreciate
19 that.
20 SUPERVISOR HILL: Be happy to do that.
21 And I know -- just one other issue. The Board of
22 Supervisors in San Francisco took up the issue and did not
23 move it forward either.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. Well, and many
25 times different political bodies find themselves, you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 know, unable to deal with a situation. So we all have to
2 do what we can.
3 Thank you very much.
4 At this point I believe this item will be
5 concluded.
6 Did you have any closing comments on this?
7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: No.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
9 In that case, we will move to our next item on
10 the agenda, which is the proposed regulation for
11 commercial harbor craft.
12 Actually, before we do that -- sorry -- did we
13 have a legislative update today?
14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: I think that
15 follows this item.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Good.
17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman
18 Nichols.
19 Today we'll be providing staff analysis of
20 several issues related to the proposed harbor craft
21 regulation that we presented to you last month. The
22 primary question that you asked staff to evaluate was what
23 would be the impact of accelerating the statewide engine
24 replacement schedule in the proposed regulation.
25 In addition, you asked staff to provide
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 additional information on funding opportunities for
2 excursion vessels, new ferry standards, greenhouse gas
3 impacts, and military vessel emissions inventory.
4 Staff has completed its evaluation and is
5 prepared to provide you the results of their analysis.
6 I'd like now to have Mr. Todd Sterling of our of
7 our Stationary Source Division present the staff's
8 proposal.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Todd.
11 MR. STERLING: Good morning Madam Chairman and
12 members of the Board.
13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
14 Presented as follows.)
15 --o0o--
16 MR. STERLING: Today I'll be presenting staff's
17 analysis relating to the questions that the Board members
18 raised at the October hearing regarding the proposed
19 regulation for commercial harbor craft.
20 --o0o--
21 MR. STERLING: I will now provide a brief
22 overview of the proposed commercial harbor craft
23 regulation that was described in detail at the October
24 Board hearing.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 MR. STERLING: The proposed regulation will
2 reduce emissions from ferries, excursion vessels,
3 tugboats, and towboats. The rule requires all unregulated
4 and Tier 1 engines to be replaced with new certified
5 engines meeting the most stringent U.S. EPA standards.
6 We're not modifying these standards, just requiring that
7 engines meeting them be used in existing and new vessels.
8 All new harbor craft, including commercial fishing, will
9 need to install new certified engines.
10 The rule establishes a schedule that accelerates
11 engine replacement in existing vessels. Two replacement
12 schedules are proposed: An accelerated schedule for the
13 South Coast and a base schedule for the state overall.
14 The engines being replaced in all existing harbor craft
15 will also need to be recertified engines meeting these
16 standards. All vessels will be subject to monitoring,
17 record keeping, and reporting requirements.
18 --o0o--
19 MR. STERLING: Now I will review the questions
20 raised at the last Board hearing.
21 --o0o--
22 MR. STERLING: Last month, the Board directed
23 staff to go back and determine if the proposal could be
24 modified to provide emission reductions earlier. Several
25 areas for consideration were brought up, as listed on this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 slide. Board members wanted to know if the replacement of
2 Tier 0 engines in the statewide schedule could be
3 accelerated. Members were also interested about the
4 possibility of a more limited approach, where the
5 replacement of Tier 0 ferry engines would be accelerated.
6 Staff also heard concern that the recent investment of
7 cleaner Tier 1 technology, by vessel owners, with either
8 their own fund and/or public incentive funds, be
9 recognized in the compliance schedules. There was also
10 concern if the proposal provided sufficient flexibility to
11 those vessel owners who have multiple vessels needing to
12 be replaced in the same year.
13 The following slides provide staff's analysis of
14 these questions.
15 --o0o--
16 MR. STERLING: The key question raised at the
17 last meeting concerned the replacement schedule for Tier 0
18 engines outside the South Coast. To respond to this
19 question, staff evaluated three options for accelerating
20 the replacement of Tier 0 engines. The first two involved
21 accelerating the replacement of all Tier 0 engines on a
22 statewide schedule. We looked at both accelerating engine
23 replacement to align with the South Coast schedule, and on
24 a schedule that was not as compressed as the South Coast
25 schedule.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 Additionally, since the Board expressed concern
2 specifically about Tier 0 ferry engines, we looked at
3 accelerating just the replacement of Tier 0 ferry engines.
4 --o0o--
5 MR. STERLING: In evaluating these accelerated
6 schedules, staff considered multiple factors. These
7 factors include the emission levels of both the
8 replacement engine and the engine being replaced. If
9 engines are replaced earlier, many would be replaced with
10 Tier 2 engines rather than 3. Tier 3 engines emit
11 50 percent less PM than Tier 2 engines and 20 percent less
12 NOx. So a schedule that replaces more engines with a Tier
13 2 rather than a Tier 3 will lose long-term benefits.
14 A second consideration is that late model Tier 0
15 engines are cleaner than older Tier 0 engines. So there
16 is not as much benefit in replacing them early. We'll
17 consider this in more detail in the following slides.
18 A third factor considered was the impact of an
19 increase in number of engines to be repowered each year if
20 the schedule is accelerated. There is limited capacity
21 for this type of work to be done. Staff made an analysis
22 of the capacity based on talking with about 30 facilities
23 in California that do this type of work. We estimated
24 that the maximum capacity for repowers under the
25 regulation is about 75 vessels per year. Some vessel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 owners have expressed the concern that this number's
2 unrealistic, citing numbers as low as 24 vessel for year,
3 based on their experience with the boat yards that their
4 vessel association members do work with.
5 MR. STERLING: The impact of compacting the
6 schedule on the number of owners required to repower
7 multiple vessels within the same year is another important
8 factor that was considered.
9 Board members asked staff to recognize the early
10 investment that some vessel operators have made in Tier 1
11 technology. In recognition of this, staff considered how
12 an accelerated schedule would offer a 15-year service life
13 to all Tier 1 engines outside the South Coast.
14 --o0o--
15 MR. STERLING: This slide illustrates two factors
16 that are important in evaluating any compliance schedule.
17 The two charts show PM and NOx emission levels for
18 different engine standard. They show that replacing a
19 Tier 0 engine, the two bars on the left of the chart, with
20 a Tier 3 engine, the bar on the far right, instead of a
21 Tier 2, the second bar from the right, will provide
22 greater reductions in both PM and NOx.
23 Since Tier 3 engines do not become available
24 until 2014, as you compress the engine replacement
25 schedule more, Tier 0 engines will be replaced by Tier 2
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 engines. This action, while providing reductions more
2 quickly, will result in less reductions over the life of
3 the engines.
4 The other thing it shows is that late model Tier
5 0 engines are about 25 to 30 percent cleaner than earlier
6 Tier 0 engines.
7 These are important factors for consideration in
8 acceleration of any schedule.
9 --o0o--
10 MR. STERLING: This chart illustrates the
11 trade-off between replacing an engine early with a Tier 2
12 engine, or waiting two years, until 2014, when Tier 3
13 engines are available, and replacing it with a Tier 3.
14 The early emissions gains in the first two years are shown
15 in yellow. These reductions are not as beneficial as the
16 long-term reductions gained by waiting two years when Tier
17 3 engines are available. These long-term reductions are
18 shown in blue. The Tier 3 engine provides 25 percent
19 greater PM benefits and 20 percent greater NOx benefits
20 over the 20-year life for the Tier 2 engine. In this
21 example, the loss in long-term benefits is about three
22 times greater than those gained by early implementation.
23 While replacing the engine early is an
24 appropriate trade-off for the South Coast, where they need
25 the early reductions to meet SIP requirements, it is not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 the best option for the rest of the state.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. STERLING: Staff analyzed accelerating the
4 impact of replacement of Tier 0 engines statewide. We
5 looked at accelerating the same schedule as the South
6 Coast as well as a less compressed schedule. In either
7 case, we lose long-term emission reductions due to the
8 replacement of engines with Tier 2 engines rather than
9 Tier 3. As shown in the previous slide, this
10 significantly reduces long-term emission benefits. A
11 compressed schedule also either strains or exceeds the
12 repower capacity of the state in several years, and causes
13 additional impact on the regulated community by increasing
14 the number of operators that will need to repower multiple
15 vessels in the same year.
16 Thus, in all cases, compressing the compliance
17 schedule for Tier 0 engines will provide short-term
18 benefits at the expense of greater long-term reductions a
19 year or two later.
20 --o0o--
21 Staff also looked at accelerating the replacement
22 of Tier 0 engines for just ferries subject to the
23 statewide schedule. If the Tier 0 ferry engines scheduled
24 to be replaced in 2015 and 2016, which are the 1996
25 through 1999 model year engines, are replaced early, in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 2014, when Tier 3 engines become available, no long-term
2 benefits would be lost. This would accelerate reductions
3 from those Tier 0 engines replacements by one to
4 two years.
5 The 2000 model year Tier 1 engines would still be
6 replaced in 2015 and 2016, maintaining a 15-year life for
7 the Tier 1 engines. Based on staff's estimate that less
8 than ten ferries would be impacted by this acceleration,
9 this change would not adversely impact the repower
10 capacity, but would increase the economic impact of the
11 rule on ferry owners.
12 --o0o--
13 MR. STERLING: Staff reviewed the flexibility
14 allowed in the proposal for operators who have multiple
15 vessels that will need to replace engines in the same
16 year. In addition to the one-year extension provided in
17 the proposed regulation, operators may propose an
18 alternative compliance plan which would allow them to
19 space the replacements over a longer time frame.
20 For example, a fleet could replace some engines
21 earlier than the compliance date and some engines later,
22 such that the engine replacements would occur over a
23 longer time frame but the overall emission reductions
24 achieved would be the same or better than if all engines
25 had been replaced by the compliance date.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 However, for vessels with early compliance dates,
2 the alternative compliance plan is not feasible and the
3 only option available in this rule is a one-year
4 extension.
5 The next slide presents a possible option to
6 address this issue.
7 --o0o--
8 MR. STERLING: A possible option would be to
9 provide a phrased compliance schedule for owners with
10 multiple vessels required to comply in the first two years
11 of the implementation. The option presented here would
12 require that a portion of the fleet be repowered each year
13 and that all of the repowers to be completed by 2013.
14 This would allow up to four years for the repowers to be
15 completed, but would not jeopardize the early reductions
16 necessary in the South Coast.
17 --o0o--
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Can I just clarify.
19 That would be an amendment that would have to be
20 made to the proposal.
21 MR. STERLING: Yes, ma'am
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And that would be done
23 during the 15-day window if we were to do that?
24 MR. STERLING: Yes, ma'am.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 --o0o--
2 MR. STERLING: At the October Board hearing, the
3 Board had several questions for staff. These questions
4 include funding for excursion vessel repowers, the
5 economic impact of the proposed regulation on small fleet
6 operators, after-treatment technology for new ferries, and
7 the impact of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas
8 emission.
9 The neck several slides will review and provide
10 additional information on those questions.
11 --o0o--
12 MR. STERLING: A question was asked concerning
13 the availability of funding for excursion vessels,
14 specifically Moyer Program funding. The Carl Moyer
15 program has provided several millions of dollars to
16 install new engines on commercial harbor craft. A typical
17 excursion vessel engine replacement would meet the cost
18 effectiveness requirement under the Moyer program. In
19 fact, over the past several years, 12 excursion vessels
20 have been repowered under the Moyer program and other
21 local incentive programs. However, while excursion vessel
22 repowers can qualify for Moyer funding, they are not as
23 cost effective as ferry and tug repowers. This is due to
24 the lower number of operating hours for excursion vessels
25 compared to ferries and tugs. Since the Moyer program is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 typically oversubscribed, and the district will provide
2 funding to the most cost effective projects, excursion
3 vessels are less likely to receive funding compared to
4 ferries and tugboats.
5 --o0o--
6 MR. STERLING: Staff was asked to review the
7 economic impact to small harbor craft fleets. About a
8 third of the ferry/excursion category and a third of all
9 towboats are owned by single vessel owners. A much
10 smaller portion of the tugboat fleet comes under this
11 category.
12 Staff was not able to develop a fleet size or
13 hours-of-operation cutoff for small fleet operators,
14 beyond the proposed 300 hours per year low use cutoff,
15 that would preserve most of the emission reductions while
16 reducing the economic impact of the regulation.
17 Staff anticipates that the economic impact of the
18 proposed regulation would be greater for excursion vessel
19 owners than ferry, tugboat, or towboat owners, given the
20 recreational nature of their activity.
21 Using actual economic data for three companies
22 operating excursion vessels, as well as an analysis of the
23 estimated costs for a typical excursion vessel repower,
24 staff estimated that the cost of complying with the
25 regulation could be recovered by a 5 to 10 percent
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 increase in ticket price.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. STERLING: Staff was also asked to reevaluate
4 after-treatment technologies used on ferries.
5 During the October Board hearing, European SCR
6 was mentioned as a proven technology. ARB staff would
7 agree, but the European ferries would not be a typical
8 California ferry. The European ferries are very large
9 ferries, carrying cars and passengers, similar in size to
10 oceangoing vessels. Staff noted a single ferry designated
11 as a fast ferry. However, our request for additional
12 information on the size of the vessel has not yet received
13 a response.
14 In the United States, the Staten Island ferry,
15 which is also a large ferry that is using an SCR unit to
16 reduce NOx emissions. The Blue and Gold ferry in San
17 Francisco Bay is successful using diesel particulate
18 filters on their auxiliary engines on one of their
19 ferries. However, for demonstration of emission control
20 technology on propulsion engines, the demonstration
21 program involving a private ferry fleet in New York City
22 provides the most permanent information.
23 The New York State Energy Research and
24 Development Authority has completed a demonstration
25 program of emission control technology on private ferries
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 in New York. These vessels are very similar in size and
2 operation to typical California ferries. While many
3 technologies were initially planned, the only projects
4 demonstrated was a diesel oxidation catalyst and a diesel
5 oxidation catalyst with a fuel-borne catalyst.
6 As a result of our evaluation, we did not find
7 information that supported changing the requirement
8 contained in the proposed regulation.
9 --o0o--
10 MR. STERLING: Finally, staff was asked to
11 provide additional information on the impacts of the
12 proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.
13 We anticipate that the replacement of Tier 0
14 engines, which are mechanically controlled engines, with
15 Tier 1 engines, which are electronically controlled
16 engines, will provide a small improvement in efficiency on
17 the order of 1 to 2 percent.
18 At this time, it is not clear if other
19 improvements will increase the efficiency of Tier 2 and 3
20 engines compared to Tier 1 engines.
21 Assuming a 1 percent improvement in efficiency,
22 CO2 reductions would be on the order of .007 million
23 metric tons per year.
24 --o0o--
25 MR. STERLING: In summary, staff found that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 accelerating the compliance schedule beyond what was
2 originally proposed would result in less emission
3 reductions, strain, or possibly exceed the repower
4 capacity of installers, and result in owners having
5 multiple engines replaced in the same year.
6 Staff did find that accelerating the replacement
7 schedule for 1996 to 1999 Tier 0 engines on ferries could
8 be achieved without a loss of emission benefits.
9 Staff also found that greater flexibility for
10 owners that have multiple vessels that have to comply in
11 the first two years of the regulation was needed.
12 This concludes my presentation. At this time
13 we'd be happy to answer questions.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, thank you.
15 Before we get into Board member questions and
16 comments, I just want to set the stage a little bit here.
17 First of all, to make it clear that this item is
18 a continuation of an item that was presented at our last
19 Board meeting. And we did have a full public hearing at
20 that time and we closed the record. So it's not our
21 intention to take additional public testimony at today's
22 meeting. This was put over for Board member discussion.
23 We asked a bunch of questions. And we appreciate your
24 coming back to us with more information.
25 This item is important. And in light of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 earlier conversation, I think also we should make it clear
2 that the impact of the operations of these harbor craft is
3 most directly on people who live closer to the harbors.
4 And in every area that I know of where there is a harbor,
5 that tends to be low income and frequently communities of
6 color.
7 So there are real direct health -- public health
8 impacts of these regulations as well as in the kind of
9 bigger context of the whole region that gets affected by
10 these emissions.
11 So it's long overdue, but we should move forward
12 on these vessels. And we're really happy that we have
13 this rule before us. It has been the result of a lot of
14 effort. And clearly we're dealing with, you know, vessels
15 that are quite different from each other in some cases.
16 And as you've point out, they have different operating
17 profiles, different kinds of engines and all of that.
18 So, you know, you've done really a great job in
19 putting this together.
20 I do have one concern about the way you took the
21 question about accelerating the turnover. Because we have
22 traditionally, and I think it's correct, focused most of
23 our attention on the South Coast because of the severity
24 of their regional air problem and the need to get the
25 additional tons to meet their SIP commitments. On the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 other hand, there are some very old and some of the worst
2 engines, I suspect, operating in other parts of the state
3 as well. And we kind of looked at this just as a South
4 Coast versus everywhere else proposition. And I'm
5 wondering if you gave any thought or if you're able to
6 give any thought to the possibility of a method of
7 acceleration that would involve taking the dirtiest, as
8 you mention, the older Tier 0 engines and requiring them
9 to come into compliance first. In other words, it's less
10 than, you know, making everybody subject to the same
11 thing, but it would be a way of getting some additional
12 benefits captured at a somewhat earlier stage.
13 Is that something that you're able to lock at?
14 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This
15 is Dan Donohoue.
16 The basic design of the original proposal had
17 that the oldest engines and the highest use engines would
18 come in first.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So that's already built
20 into the schedule.
21 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: So
22 that's built in And with each subsequent band of engines
23 we've then again brought in the higher-use ones, the
24 greater than 1500 hour operation. Then we'll come in with
25 the 300 to 1500 hour of operation engines. And we tried
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 to balance those with what we thought was, you know, the
2 ability for the installation capacity there. So we feel
3 like that we've designed that.
4 When we went back and looked at the regulation,
5 there were some opportunities at least as far as excess
6 capacity in the 12, 13 time frame. But in pushing the
7 engines that were above that thing back into there, that's
8 where we would come up with the issue about moving the
9 Tier 0 engines to Tier 2 rather than Tier 3.
10 So we really do believe that we have, you know,
11 attempted to get the dirtiest out the quickest and provide
12 a little bit of additional time for those that are
13 particularly the later Tier 0 engines in the 1996 time
14 frame and beyond.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks, Mr. Donohoue.
16 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo first and then Mr. Hill --
17 Supervisor Hill.
18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I think staff's done
19 an excellent job going through the issues. And it appears
20 that you're leaving open the question about acceleration
21 Tier 0 ferry engine replacement. And so I would just like
22 to align myself with actually doing the acceleration.
23 I'm concerned, in addition to the exposures that
24 the Chair raised, to the exposure of passengers on the
25 ferries. So I'd be in favor of that acceleration
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 schedule.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If you'd like to offer that
3 as an amendment, and we could take that up now.
4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, so moved.
5 And then I did just have one question. As I
6 understand it, the excursions, it just wouldn't pencil out
7 in terms of the economic benefit. But for their
8 participation in the Carl Moyer program, does Carl Moyer
9 account for as a factor exposure to passengers? I kind of
10 compare this to the school bus issue, you know, very
11 limited -- very low use. But those that are on those
12 buses are exposed. And, in fact, I know because my
13 daughter went to her prom last year on one of these
14 excursions. So we are not talking about -- well, we are
15 talking about sensitive populations.
16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I don't think
17 that Carl Moyer takes that into account. For excursion
18 vessels it would be typically a one -- you know, seldom
19 exposure; whereas for the ferries, it's a repeat
20 population. Ferry owners have indicated to us that they
21 believe that the exposure on the vessel is very low, that
22 most of them are contained in air conditioned and designed
23 so that the exhaust does not get into the cabin.
24 But obviously when you're loading and unloading
25 and in a neighborhood where the ferry pulls in and pulls
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 out of, you'll get those benefits.
2 So we think the issue with the excursion vessels
3 and exposure is quite a bit different from the potential
4 for the ferries.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Other comments?
6 Supervisor Case
7 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I would agree with the
8 acceleration of the ferry schedule since it looks like
9 it's something that is certainly feasible to do. And,
10 again, the impact on the neighborhood surrounding the
11 harbors and other places tend to be the lower income
12 neighborhoods that are disproportionately affected.
13 I'm still -- if somebody could explain for me. I
14 realize South Coast went on an accelerated schedule, which
15 would give you more reductions sooner, but forgo long-term
16 reductions. Can you explain to me why they made that
17 trade-off choice? Because we're all concerned with
18 getting this to the lowest level. Maybe it's because they
19 have such a high level currently. But they chose that
20 trade-off, and I'm not real clear on why.
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I don't think
22 they chose the trade-off. What we were trying to do was
23 to ensure that we got every possible NOx emission
24 reduction in the South Coast by the 2014 attainment date,
25 which we just had the SIP hearing on. And so we designed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 the regulation to maximize the NOx reductions and still be
2 what we thought was economically fair to the vessel
3 owners.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, as I understand your
5 analysis, the trade-off is not -- doesn't exist in the
6 same way for South Coast because there's an issue of the
7 numbers of Tier 3 engines and the capacity to put them in.
8 So that in effect we're just sending the cleanest engines
9 there first. Isn't that --
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: No, no. We
11 do have the problem in the South Coast in that vessels
12 that are repowered in 2013 unless we have early
13 introduction of Tier 4 will not have that engine available
14 for that.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So there's still some
16 degree of trade-off, yeah.
17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: So --
18 actually 2013. So we had to make that trade-off. And the
19 South Coast advised us that that was their preferred
20 strategy to do that.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for clarifying
22 that. I had not understood that.
23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I think
24 on that because some of the older vessels are done a
25 little earlier in the South Coast, we kind of make up for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 that. But for that particular segment of vessels it is a
2 problem.
3 The issue is with the whole fleet there's
4 about -- there's more than 60 vessels out there that are
5 kind of in the swing area, that if you move them forward a
6 year or two you lose the benefits of the better engines.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right.
8 BOARD MEMBER CASE: But their choice was to meet
9 attainment on the schedule date of 2014, and that was why
10 they made that selection.
11 I presume there's also an issue, if you expand
12 from the South Coast to statewide, that's when we get into
13 a capacity problem, the inability to change out all the
14 engines, the capacity to do that.
15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's
16 correct. And our analysis showed that would be extreme in
17 2013, that that would be -- there would be so many engines
18 moved into the 2013 compliance period.
19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And there's no real impact
20 with the ferry acceleration.
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: No, we're
22 only talking about a few vessels. I mean the impact there
23 is an economic impact on the ferry operators, because they
24 will get, you know, a year or two less useful life out of
25 the current engine and have to retrofit -- or replace it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 earlier. But there's no loss in benefit, because it's
2 still a Tier 3 retrofit under either circumstance.
3 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And then --
4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The other
5 point I'd like to make is, you know, we do not have the
6 final schedule for the U.S. EPA rulemaking. And we have
7 commented on ways that they could improve it, and we're
8 hopeful to see that. So obviously for a compliance date
9 that's well off into the future, when we get that we'll
10 look at our rule and our assumptions here. And if it
11 makes sense to revisit the rule, we could do that at that
12 time.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That would be great.
14 But in general, our experience is that EPA rules
15 move in the wrong direction in terms of --
16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yeah, we hope
17 for faster and we fear slower.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I'd like to restate my
20 support for moving forward with that. I think it's an
21 appropriate thing to do, and especially given the
22 testimony we had, concerns from communities that get
23 disproportionately affected.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
25 Any other comments?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 SUPERVISOR HILL: Yes, a question, Madam Chair.
2 And this is regarding the analysis on Slide 10, which I
3 think has been done very well.
4 The question I have is: Is the assumption made
5 that after 2014 on terms of the availability of repower
6 engines -- I mean is this assuming that they will all be
7 available at that point in time? Or are you -- you know,
8 there certainly would be a time frame of availability that
9 will stretch out for many numbers of years. Does that
10 affect the analysis that was done in terms of the greater
11 PM benefit and the greater NOx benefit?
12 CONTROL STRATEGIES SECTION MANAGER RAINFORTH:
13 This analysis is for an engine and it assumes
14 that the -- and this is really looking at one engine. And
15 it's assuming that, yes, that the Tier 3 would be
16 available in 2014. And there is a phase-in schedule for
17 this where the smaller engines come in earlier, the Tier
18 3, and they move later for the larger engines. But for
19 most of the engines in the commercial harbor craft fleet
20 they'll come in in 2014.
21 SUPERVISOR HILL: And there'll be enough
22 available at that point in time to meet this -- so we're
23 not going to drag this out for five or ten years that
24 could change the dynamics of this benefit over the long
25 term.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The way the
2 federal works is every new engine manufactured after a
3 certain date must meet the required standard.
4 SUPERVISOR HILL: But wasn't -- the question
5 before and the issue has always been just the availability
6 of those engines. They may have to be made that. But if
7 they're not making enough engines to repower the fleets
8 that we're talking about.
9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, we
10 think -- it's a nationwide rule. So once they start
11 making them, the supply will not be an issue. The
12 California demand will be a very small portion of the
13 national demand.
14 SUPERVISOR HILL: So that won't be a problem then
15 in terms of meeting this --
16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That issue,
17 we don't see it will be a problem.
18 SUPERVISOR HILL: Okay. Thank you.
19 And I agree with the acceleration clause as well.
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
21 Supervisor Roberts.
22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, Madam Chair --
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Welcome back, by the way.
24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- just a -- thank you --
25 couple quick comments.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 I wanted to just for the record indicate that I
2 did review the transcript of this, which I missed at the
3 October meeting.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: And therefore I'm eligible
6 to participate, as I understand it.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate that.
8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Secondly, I'm in agreement
9 with the comments and changes that have been suggested.
10 And, thirdly, I would like to perhaps invite you
11 to tour our bay, which has -- it's maybe an equal
12 opportunity polluter and has --
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. That sounds
14 like a great excursion.
15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- varied housing types
16 surrounding and in close proximity to the entire bay.
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Right. Thank you.
18 And I think, Ms. Riordan, you also wanted to make
19 a comment.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, indeed. Thank you,
21 Madam Chairman.
22 A transcript of this item was made available to
23 me and I have read it, and so feel comfortable in
24 participating with the vote.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 I wanted to ask our Ombudsman, Ms. Quetin, to
2 describe any other activities that have gone on since the
3 hearing.
4 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Chairman Nichols and members
5 of the Board. I have a very brief comment on the
6 continued outreach with the affected parties.
7 Basically since the last month's Board hearing,
8 staff has had numerous meetings with the Passenger Vehicle
9 Association, environmental groups, as well as many of the
10 California ferry operators, the South Coast AQMD, and the
11 Bay Area Air District.
12 And that concludes my comments.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
14 Are there any additional ex parte communications
15 that anyone needs to put on the record?
16 I see one.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, I do.
18 Yes, on October 24th I met with Devra Wang, NRDC,
19 in Merced, and Diane Bailey joined via conference call.
20 And their comments were consistent with the testimony that
21 Ms. Wang presented at the last hearing.
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay.
23 Yes.
24 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
25 On October 24th I met with Devra Wang of NRDC in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 Redwood City, and Diane Bailey joined via conference call.
2 And their comments were reflective of their testimony at
3 the last meeting.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And I met with a group of
5 environmentalists, although Devra was not one of them.
6 Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Tim Carmichael, Diane Bailey of
7 NRDC, and others. And they also reiterated their concerns
8 about this rule. I understand that they're very
9 disappointed that we're not able to apply statewide a more
10 accelerated schedule. And I share their disappointed.
11 But I think the staff has made a pretty convincing case
12 that their proposal is really the best that we can do.
13 Others?
14 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes. And I also met with
15 Diane Bailey and Devra Wang of NRDC. It was consistent
16 with the earlier discussions.
17 BOARD MEMBER CASE: For the record, I had no
18 meetings.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
20 Well, I think at this point it's time to move
21 forward then, unless -- oh, Mr. Scheible.
22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yeah. I
23 heard the Board discuss the issue of accelerating the
24 ferries.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And in the
2 staff presentation we presented the issue of additional
3 flexibility for those vessels that have large fleets that
4 are affected early on.
5 Is the Board also considering that as a change?
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I personally think it
7 really depends on how many are likely to be affected and
8 what the process is. How would you actually administer
9 this?
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We'd have to
11 work it out through the 15-day process. We think it would
12 be something that the -- only a very few fleets would be
13 affected, and they'd have to show that they couldn't meet
14 the rule and had this compaction. And then the Executive
15 Officer would have the authority to say, "Okay, you can go
16 on an alternative compliance schedule."
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, under the
18 circumstances I think that's kind of a safety valve, if --
19 others are nodding their heads. I think we would like to
20 see that change made.
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We found at
22 least one fleet that would be very highly impacted in the
23 first two years.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So with the two
25 amendments that we've now discussed, I think we have the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 item in front of us then.
2 And we can just have you call the roll would be
3 fine.
4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case?
5 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Yes.
6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo?
7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye.
8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill?
9 SUPERVISOR HILL: Aye.
10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard?
11 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Aye.
12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mrs. Riordan?
13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye.
14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts?
15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Aye.
16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling?
17 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye.
18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Nichols?
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Aye.
20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Motion passes.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Unanimously. Excellent.
22 Thank you.
23 Thanks, everybody. And thanks for all the hard
24 work. I really appreciate the staff. You must be pleased
25 to have reached a milestone. A very long journey.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 All right. We'll sort of take a break while we
2 shift the personnel here.
3 I'm going to ask -- Rob Oglesby, I know you're
4 next up. But we have Board members with some schedule
5 issues. Is it okay with you if we shift your item to the
6 end of the meeting and get right into the next item for
7 actual Board action?
8 I really appreciate that. Thank you very much.
9 And while we're shifting here, I also want to
10 mention that we are going to take a lunch break today.
11 And I'm going to invite Board members to pick up their
12 lunch and join me in a room that's nearby here, which is
13 Training Room 2, which is right out the hall and around to
14 the left, and invite members of the audience who are here
15 and interested to come as well. This is one of a series
16 of briefings that we are doing for people in the Agency
17 and members of the public who are available on matters of
18 interest in the field of air pollution.
19 Today's session involves the unveiling of a new
20 green innovation index, which has been produced and
21 sponsored by a group called Next Ten, a nonprofit
22 organization. And they focus on the area of innovation
23 and the interaction between the environment and the
24 economy and quality of life issues for California.
25 They've been working to develop this index as a way to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 gauge progress around the state on a number of key
2 indicators to really help us understand the role that
3 innovations and technology can play in reducing greenhouse
4 gas emissions while improving the economy.
5 So it's a really innovative and interesting
6 approach I think to helping the public and others
7 understand -- public and experts too -- understand the
8 relationship between technology and environmental
9 improvement. And so I'm hoping that we can get a good
10 audience for them to unveil their project.
11 We will now turn to the next item on our agenda,
12 which is the issue about accelerating air quality progress
13 in the San Joaquin Valley.
14 I personally was not on the Board at the time
15 that this item first came up last June. But I received
16 the transcript early on and read it, and since that time
17 have been following the hard work of our staff and of the
18 two Board members who took on an expedited role here, one
19 of whom has just walked out of the room. So I'm not sure
20 if we're expecting her back in a second or not.
21 Maybe we should wait just a moment.
22 And I did want to thank both Supervisor Case and
23 Board Member D'Adamo for their role in leading the task
24 force, and invite them if they wanted to begin by making a
25 few comments on the process that you were engaged in.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Thank you, Madam
2 Chair.
3 I would just like to briefly remind everyone of
4 why we formed the task force and where we left off when we
5 were last before the Board at the June hearing in Fresno.
6 I did make a motion that we adopt the plan because I felt
7 at that time that unfortunately we could not -- we didn't
8 have the emission reductions available in order to close
9 the gap. But I also felt that there was significant
10 testimony and even frustration by a large number of those
11 that appeared before us, frustrated about the process and
12 also concerned that perhaps we didn't look into this fully
13 and deeply enough.
14 So I thought that it was important to -- despite
15 the fact that I felt that we should approve the plan, I
16 thought it was important to give ourselves a little bit
17 more time and that we form a formal process in order to do
18 that. So I suggested a task force and was elected as the
19 chair of the task force. So I spent a great deal of time,
20 along with staff and Supervisor Case, in the valley.
21 And I would just like to go through the three
22 goals that I felt we needed to pursue with the task force.
23 First of all, I felt that it was important that
24 we engage in outreach directly with all of the
25 stakeholders.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 It also seemed that communications were fairly
2 poor, just generally speaking, whether it be communication
3 between the district and stakeholders or between our staff
4 or our Board members. I just felt that it was important
5 to engage in as much direct communication as possible.
6 We set out to hold four task force meetings. We
7 ended up holding five, and three community meetings. We
8 did that. In addition, I participated in an environmental
9 justice tour and in multiple private meetings, conference
10 calls.
11 And so I felt that we did in fact accomplish that
12 goal as well, namely a transparent, open process.
13 And then the third goal was to fully discuss ways
14 that we could reach attainment sooner. And staff will be
15 going through its analysis -- first of all, its
16 description of our efforts and also the analysis.
17 So what I'd like to do is, once staff has
18 completed its description of the specific efforts, maybe
19 provide some additional comments once staff has put it in
20 greater context.
21 And I would like to really thank the efforts of
22 Ms. Terry and her staff. It wasn't just five meetings
23 and -- task force meetings and community meetings. But
24 each meeting took hundreds of hours for them to prepare
25 and be able to fully respond to the questions that had
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 been raised at the previous meetings, preparation of
2 reports, et cetera. So they really do deserve to be
3 complimented.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
6 Supervisor Case, you were absent when I thanked
7 you for your service. So I'll thank you again and invite
8 to you make any opening comments before we move into the
9 staff presentation concerning your efforts with the task
10 force.
11 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Well, I certainly would agree
12 that the process was a good forum to have an open
13 dialogue. Sometimes we sit up here at the dais and it's
14 somewhat stifled. And I'm sure people in the audience
15 feel that the time limitation is difficult to deal with.
16 And I want to thank those who participated consistently at
17 every meeting. We had members from the environmental
18 community, the health care environmental interests. It
19 was everybody at the same table.
20 And I too would like to compliment staff. When
21 questions arose, they could be answered at that particular
22 meeting. They were brought forward. They were analyzed.
23 They were re-presented.
24 I think the good news is is we found a number of
25 areas of improvement. It was really quite dramatic.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 And I think that was a good step. And I
2 appreciate having the opportunity certainly. I think
3 there's been a lot of additional good work to be taken
4 back to the San Joaquin Valley. And I think it provided a
5 forum and I appreciate working with all the individuals
6 that were there.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
8 All right. I think at this point, Mr. Goldstene,
9 we'll ask you to introduce the item.
10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman
11 Nichols.
12 At the September Board meeting, the Board
13 strengthened the mobile source portion of the San Joaquin
14 Valley ozone SIP. Since then, staff has taken one more
15 look at the stationary source portion of the Valley SIP.
16 The outcome of that analysis was completed last week and
17 discussed at the November 7th task force meeting.
18 In addition, staff has looked at how far the
19 Board adopted SIP improvements -- at how far the
20 Board-adopted SIP improvements will take us towards
21 attainment.
22 Staff's presentation today will describe these
23 results, where we stand with respect to the San Joaquin
24 Valley SIP, and recommend a path forward. Staff's
25 recommendations reflect our continued focus on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 Valley's air quality and public health needs.
2 At this point I'll ask Kurt Karperos, the Chief
3 of the Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, to
4 report on staff's analysis and the public process.
5 Mr. Karperos, will you begin your presentation
6 please.
7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
8 Presented as follows.)
9 --o0o--
10 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
11 CHIEF KARPEROS: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene.
12 Good morning, Chairman Nichols and members of the
13 Board.
14 This morning I will review the work that's been
15 done to speed Valley air quality progress since your June
16 14 hearing on the Valley ozone SIP.
17 Next slide please.
18 --o0o--
19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
20 CHIEF KARPEROS: A lot has happened since June:
21 You adopted a state strategy for mobile sources
22 in September that was strengthened over what was discussed
23 at the June meeting.
24 Staff and Board members have talked and consulted
25 extensively with Valley stakeholders.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 Staff has revisited the San Joaquin Valley Air
2 District's rules and SIP commitments one more time to
3 ensure they meet stringency requirements.
4 And, finally, staff has developed a set of
5 recommended actions for air district, local government,
6 and ARB intended to keep the valley moving forward.
7 Next.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
10 CHIEF KARPEROS: The Board's September action will speed
11 Valley's progress towards full compliance with the federal
12 8-hour ozone standard. With the strengthened measures you
13 approved, staff projects the Valley will make 90 percent
14 progress towards attainment by 2018.
15 The Valley has 22 air monitors that measure
16 progress. This table shows the progress we expect at each
17 monitor between now and 2018. The monitors highlighted in
18 green will make it all the way to attainment, 100 percent
19 progress. Today, four monitors already meet the federal
20 ozone standard. By 2018, we project that will grow to 15
21 monitors located throughout the region. The monitors in
22 blue will not make it all the way to attainment, but will
23 still have much cleaner air.
24 Arvin, which currently sees the highest measured
25 ozone levels in the Valley, is expected to see a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 50 percent improvement.
2 When the improvement at all these sites is
3 averaged, the overall valley-wide improvement is about 90
4 percent. This assessment is based on SIP modeling runs
5 and the strengthened SIP commitment approved by the Board.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
8 CHIEF KARPEROS: ARB measures for mobile sources are the
9 primary reason behind this progress. The strengthened SIP
10 includes larger reductions from more aggressive measures
11 for diesel trucks and construction equipment, the latter
12 through the SOON program. Staff also added reductions
13 from mobile agricultural equipment, primarily tractors.
14 Together, these three strengthened measures will
15 provide about 50 percent more NOx reductions from mobile
16 sources in 2017 than previously planned. Together, with
17 the reductions from California's longstanding regulations
18 for cars and trucks plus District actions, the
19 strengthened SIP will reduce total Valley oh NOx emissions
20 by 70 percent between now and 2017.
21 The Valley's comprehensive ozone air quality
22 studies show that NOx reductions are essential to
23 accelerate attainment because they are much more effective
24 than reductions in reactive organic gases.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
2 CHIEF KARPEROS: Before moving on to staff's technical
3 findings, let me describe the public process that's been
4 underway since the summer.
5 In August, staff convened a 14-member task force
6 of Valley industry representatives, environmental and
7 community advocates, and local government officials. The
8 task force has met five times, most recently on November
9 7th, when staff briefed the group on the report we're
10 presenting today.
11 The task force discussions have been detailed and
12 open. Staff from the International Sustainable Systems
13 Research Center, known as ISSRC, presented their ideas for
14 mobile and stationary sources reductions. ARB staff
15 briefed the group on its proposed mobile source strategy
16 prior to the September Board meeting.
17 Other discussion topics have included incentives,
18 air quality bonds, diesel retrofit technologies, emission
19 inventory, the private truck rule, and operational control
20 concepts - the term often used to describe limits on
21 polluting activities on days with high ozone.
22 We've held three community meetings: One in
23 Merced in the north part of the Valley, one in Parlier in
24 the central Valley, and one in Arvin on the very southern
25 boundary of the District. The Merced meeting was well
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 attended and we had a very positive discussion. The
2 Parlier meeting was lightly attended. And the Arvin
3 meeting was the largest, with the public very vocal about
4 their concerns.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
7 CHIEF KARPEROS: This slide outlines the technical work
8 that staff has been doing; and in the case of the ISSRC
9 report, one of the resources staff has looked at to find
10 ways to accelerate progress.
11 Over the course of the summer, staff revisited
12 the proposed ARB SIP commitment with the goal to increase
13 mobile source NOx reductions to meet South Coast's PM2.5
14 reduction targets and to speed progress in the Valley.
15 As you know, your rulemaking on construction
16 equipment was underway in June. And you in July adopted
17 the construction equipment rule with the SOON program
18 proposed by staff and developed in consultation with the
19 South Coast and Valley air districts.
20 Staff has gone back and looked again at the
21 District's stationary source rules to determine if they do
22 in fact meet stringency requirements and if more
23 reductions can be had.
24 Since the inventory was finalized for the SIP in
25 late 2006, District and ARB staffs have continued to work
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 on inventory improvements. Staff reviewed this work to
2 understand its implications to attainment going forward.
3 And, finally, the ISSRC report presented ideas
4 for ways to reduce emissions from both mobile and
5 stationary sources. For mobile sources, the report
6 contained a range of emission estimates. The strengthened
7 mobile source strategy you adopted came in at about the
8 middle of the ISSRC range.
9 The primary difference between the ISSRC report
10 and the adopted mobile source strategy is the ISSRC
11 assumptions regarding retrofits. The report assumed that
12 additional reductions will be uniformly possible through
13 retrofits. The adopted SIP sets aggressive reduction
14 targets, but does not dictate either retrofits or
15 equipment replacement. Compliance would include retrofits
16 to the extent they are available and cost effective.
17 The ISSRC report took a similar approach to
18 stationary source controls, assuming the broad
19 applicability of additional retrofit technology on
20 existing industrial equipment. These assumptions pose
21 some real-world questions that I'll discuss in future
22 slides.
23 Next.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 CHIEF KARPEROS: Before discussing our latest review of
2 the District's plan, I'll highlight a series of recent
3 oversight actions ARB has taken.
4 In 2003, staff reviewed the District's proposed
5 measures for PM10 attainment in the Valley's PM10 SIP.
6 Particles formed in the air from chemical reactions with
7 NOx make up a large part of the valley's particulate
8 pollution, so NOx measures were an important part of the
9 PM10 SIP. Staff determined that the SIP met EPA
10 requirements for reasonably available control measures.
11 EPA concurred when it approved the District's PM10 SIP.
12 Also in 2003, staff followed an inter-district
13 effort to compare rules among Sacramento, Bay Area, and
14 San Joaquin Valley air districts. South Coast rules were
15 also looked at. The air district-led effort was done to
16 ensure consistency among districts linked through
17 pollution transport.
18 In 2004, staff again reviewed the Valley rules
19 and SIP measures, this time for the 1-hour ozone SIP.
20 Also that year, staff was reviewing local
21 particulate matter rules, including the Valley's, as part
22 of the SB 656 effort. SB 656 required ARB to identify the
23 most readily available, feasible, and cost-effective
24 control measures that can be employed by air districts to
25 reduce particulate matter. Staff's review included NOx
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 rules because of NOx contribution to ambient particulate
2 levels. As a second step, in 2005, air districts were to
3 adopt implementation schedules for selected measures from
4 the ARB list.
5 In 2005, ARB staff conducted a broad review of
6 the District's program. ARB staff does these reviews
7 regularly of selected air districts. They're thorough and
8 in-depth efforts. The Valley 2005 review covered rules,
9 permitting, and enforcement.
10 Next, last year and into this year, staff
11 reviewed the Valley's local SIP measures in the 8-hour
12 ozone plan and determined they'd met state and federal
13 stringency requirements. And, finally, after the June
14 Board meeting, ARB staff revisited its analysis one more
15 time.
16 Given community interest in the stationary source
17 component of the SIP, staff believes this was a useful
18 exercise and has documented the results in our November 6
19 report. I'll now walk you through the results of the
20 technical analysis.
21 --o0o--
22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
23 CHIEF KARPEROS: In our review, we looked at the rules
24 that govern the emissions of over 90 percent of the
25 Valley's NOx emissions from stationary sources. These
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 rules are listed here. They cover boilers, gas turbines,
2 internal combustion engines, gas furnaces, glass furnaces,
3 dryers, dehydrators, ovens, and flares.
4 Boilers are ubiquitous. They're used in
5 manufacturing, food processing, power plants, oil and gas
6 production, space heating, and more. Turbines are used
7 primarily in power plants. Internal combustion engines
8 are used mostly in agriculture, but also in oil and gas
9 production and manufacturing. Dryers and dehydrators are
10 used in agricultural activities and other sources. Flares
11 are small sources, part of oil and gas production.
12 And while we focused on NOx, we also considered
13 two major ROG sources: Composting of green waste and
14 biosolids and dairies. These are large ROG source
15 categories and are of concern due to land use as well as
16 air and water pollution issues. Finally, we also looked
17 at open burning, which although it's really a particulate
18 source, has some NOx emissions.
19 --o0o--
20 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
21 CHIEF KARPEROS: Since early this decade, the District has
22 set aggressive rulemaking targets in its SIP for ozone and
23 particulate matter and has completed 16 significant
24 rulemakings to reduce NOx. These rules cover many of the
25 types of sources I mentioned a moment ago: Boilers,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 dryers and dehydrators, internal combustion engines, glass
2 furnaces, and turbines.
3 In 2005, the District adopted a
4 first-in-the-state rule to mitigate emissions from new
5 development and the vehicles that development attracts.
6 The District's rule is now the focus of litigation. Other
7 air districts are interested in following the Valley's
8 lead and are watching closely.
9 Legislation in 2003 required ARB to develop a
10 regulation defining large dairies and livestock operations
11 that would then be regulated by air districts. ARB
12 adopted a regulation in 2005. The District adopted its
13 regulation requiring mitigation plans starting in June
14 2006. And the District is now lowering its existing
15 threshold, making it the most stringent in the state.
16 --o0o--
17 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
18 CHIEF KARPEROS: As a result of this stepped-up effort,
19 the District's existing rules together with the measures
20 in the SIP are on par with other air districts' rules,
21 including the South Coast's.
22 We've identified small differences between the
23 Valley rules and rules from similar sources in other air
24 districts. These types of differences are typical,
25 reflecting the specific nature of local sources and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 combination of technological requirements for new and
2 existing sources as well as permitting requirements.
3 Staff was not able to identity additional
4 quantifiable emission reductions from potential small
5 incremental changes to the District's stationary source
6 rules. A source-by-source assessment might result in
7 small potential reductions or none that are cost effective
8 or feasible. To give the Board context for what such an
9 analysis might turn up, we're providing a potential range
10 of zero to two tons per day.
11 With the District's most stringent rules now on
12 the books or coming, the focuses really turns to
13 implementation over the next several years. And for the
14 next SIP cycle, there's an appropriate effort to look at
15 how the rules are working in the real world and if they
16 can be ratcheted further down and there's more technology
17 advancement opportunities. The next ozone planning cycle
18 is 2010, and that would be an appropriate place to do that
19 work.
20 --o0o--
21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
22 CHIEF KARPEROS: The feasibility of retrofit technologies
23 is central to answering the question, can near-term
24 stationary source reductions be increased? The task force
25 has considered the issue, and ARB and ISSRC staffs have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 also discussed it at length.
2 California industries already have a very high
3 level of control. Retrofit systems for most uses are not
4 off the shelf, requiring unique engineering.
5 Consequently, making broad assumptions about the technical
6 feasibility and cost effectiveness of retrofit technology
7 on existing industrial equipment is inappropriate.
8 To be realistic, quantification of any additional
9 incremental benefit from a retrofit needs a
10 source-by-source analysis of technical feasibility, cost,
11 and emission reduction potential.
12 First, can it be installed? What are the space
13 constraints that a retrofit must fit into? Boilers are
14 ubiquitous in the Valley. Each will have unique
15 freeboard.
16 Are the operating conditions the right one for
17 the technology? Are the exhaust temperatures high enough
18 for catalysts to work well? Is the duty cycle conducive
19 to effective operation of the retrofit? Will the exhaust
20 constituents limit system performance?
21 Is the retrofit compatible with existing controls
22 or do they need to be removed? For example, Selective
23 Catalytic Reduction, or SRC, can provide up to about 85
24 percent NOx reduction. But for it to work, it may be
25 necessary to remove an existing but less effective control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 system that provides, say, 65 percent control.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Excuse me.
3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
4 CHIEF KARPEROS: Sure.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Could I just clarify.
6 Where and how are these questions being
7 addressed? I understand they're valid questions. I just
8 don't understand what the process is for getting them
9 answered. Who's answering them, where, when?
10 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
11 CHIEF KARPEROS: These are the sort of questions that
12 District staff would take up when they're considering,
13 first, BACT analysis, best available control technology
14 analysis, for new sources coming into the region.
15 Answering these questions successfully with a "yes" is
16 best done when you're building a new source and you can
17 engineer the system in from the ground up.
18 You also need to look at these same questions
19 when you're considering the prohibitory rules. They're
20 retrofit rules that are contained in the District's SIP.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: So are we directing them or
22 asking them to do this or are we saying they're already
23 doing it? I'm just trying to understand the posture that
24 we're in right now, because people are asking the question
25 of us. So what's happening here?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
2 CHIEF KARPEROS: The District is already asking these
3 sorts of questions. They do it on a daily basis when they
4 consider the development of new rules when they permit
5 sources. It's the answering of these types of questions
6 at that level of detail that would tell us are there
7 additional emission reductions that can be had, as opposed
8 to making broad assumptions about uniform application of a
9 retrofit technology.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. So what you're
11 saying is we need to go through this process in order to
12 establish whether and how much additional control we can
13 get from these regulations?
14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
15 CHIEF KARPEROS: Exactly. And staff's recommendations to
16 the District are intended to further revitalize the
17 District's process for doing this and bringing new
18 technology in as quickly as possible.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.
20 Sorry for the interruption.
21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
22 CHIEF KARPEROS: Certainly.
23 --o0o--
24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
25 CHIEF KARPEROS: Resolving all these engineering and other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 challenges factor into the cost effectiveness of a
2 retrofit system and its viability. For these reasons,
3 staff recommends that the district focus its efforts on
4 technology advancement, particularly for new sources.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
7 CHIEF KARPEROS: Let me shift now to the implication of
8 recent emission inventory work by both the District and
9 ARB staff.
10 The SIP inventory was finalized in November of
11 2006 in order to do the necessary air quality modeling.
12 Since then, inventory improvements have continued as it
13 always done. Even though the SIP inventory is set, there
14 are four important upcoming inventory changes that impact
15 overall progress toward attainment.
16 The first is a District emissions update for
17 devices that burn natural gas where permits are not
18 required for individual devices. This category has
19 historically been grossly overestimated by 35 to 40 tons
20 per day. The District has developed a new estimate that
21 is now in line with Energy Commission natural gas delivery
22 rate data. The analysis for this change is complete.
23 The second is another District update to better
24 account for reductions from District rules. We expect the
25 District will finish its analysis in time for ARB staff to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 review the work early next year. We expect this change
2 will reduce future NOx estimates by perhaps five tons per
3 day.
4 The third is an ARB update to emissions from
5 diesel trucks. The work is underway now in support of the
6 private diesel truck fleet rule development.
7 Preliminary review of data collected over the
8 past year shows that the average age of trucks operating
9 in the Valley may be younger than previously estimated.
10 To the extent that trucks operating in the Valley are
11 newer than thought, a revised diesel truck inventory will
12 be smaller.
13 Staff is still collecting data into the first
14 half of next year to complete the emerging picture of the
15 state's diesel truck fleets. Staff is targeting the end
16 of 2008 for a validated inventory.
17 And, lastly, a similar inventory improvement
18 effort is underway for emissions from agricultural
19 equipment, especially tractors, in support of upcoming
20 rule development for the cleanup of in-use agricultural
21 equipment. We do not expect to complete this work until
22 2009.
23 Because these changes influence any conclusions
24 about accelerated progress in the Valley, staff has
25 estimated, based on our best data to date, what the future
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 inventory could be. Staff will need to do more work over
2 the next year before we can validate any changes to the
3 current SIP inventory.
4 --o0o--
5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
6 CHIEF KARPEROS: This slide shows staff's best estimate
7 today of the combined impact of the strengthened SIP and
8 the potential future inventory changes.
9 The dashed white line across the bottom of the
10 chart is the NOx carrying capacity, the level of NOx
11 emissions that photochemical modeling shows is needed to
12 attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
13 The red line on the top is the total Valley NOx
14 emission inventory with the SIP measures presented at the
15 June hearing. In 2017, the red line is about 130 tons per
16 day above the white line. It's about 80 tons per day
17 above the white attainment line in 2023.
18 The yellow line is staff's best estimate today of
19 future NOx emissions. It reflects the greater reductions
20 in the strengthened SIP and it includes staff's estimate
21 of the potential inventory changes.
22 Both the red and yellow lines show that the SIP
23 reductions are front-loaded. Most all the reductions come
24 before 2017.
25 The yellow line, today's line, is about 49 tons
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 per day above the white attainment line in 2017. That is
2 less than one half of the shortfall we projected with the
3 SIP in June. The shortfall in 2023 is about 20 tons per
4 day. That's one-quarter of the June projected shortfall.
5 The strengthened SIP will speed air quality
6 progress and will take the Valley most of the way to
7 attainment by 2017.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
10 CHIEF KARPEROS: What will it take to close the 49 ton per
11 day emissions gap in 2017 and make the final 10 percent of
12 progress to full valley-wide attainment? We've listed
13 here the reductions from the three strengthened mobile
14 source measures from September. They give a sense of how
15 hard we need to push to close the remaining gap.
16 The construction equipment rule with the SOON
17 program will provide about ten tons per day reduction in
18 2017. The estimated reduction from tractors and other
19 farm equipment are five to ten tons per day. And,
20 finally, the big measure, the reductions targeted by the
21 private diesel truck measure, is 62 tons per day.
22 As these measures show, all these measures show,
23 getting the final reductions for attainment is not easy.
24 --o0o--
25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 CHIEF KARPEROS: This slide lists a number of ideas
2 suggested by ISSRC that have already been addressed or on
3 which work is underway now.
4 The first is a good news story. The District
5 adopted a stronger turbine rule than targeted in the SIP.
6 If the District is able to meet its other targets, these
7 reductions will reduce the shortfall.
8 ISSRC suggested reflecting emission reductions
9 from secured incentives. These reductions have been
10 reflected in the SIP inventory since the start. And staff
11 expects that incentives will be an increasingly critical
12 part of measures already in the adopted SIP.
13 The District is working with other districts and
14 ARB to find resources to fund the SOON program in the
15 Valley. When multi-year funding availability is resolved,
16 this will reduce the shortfall.
17 The District has begun to develop a Clean Air Day
18 concept, starting with voluntary actions by people in
19 businesses to limit their polluting activities on high
20 ozone days. If successful, they intend to expand the
21 program. At that time it would be appropriate to consider
22 quantifying the benefits for SIP purposes.
23 ISSRC has suggested taking credit for the SB 705
24 phase-out of agricultural burning. Since burning is
25 primarily a direct particulate issue, a SIP inventory
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 adjustment or SIP measure will be considered as part of
2 the upcoming PM2.5 SIP and NOx co-benefits will be
3 considered at that time.
4 Finally, ISSRC has suggested a rule change for
5 agricultural IC engines and other IC engines. The
6 District already has a rule for engine cleanup and is
7 pursuing a multi-pronged strategy to clean up these
8 engines, primarily irrigation pumps. Incentives have been
9 used extensively already. Electrification is the ultimate
10 goal for most of these engines, and efforts are ongoing to
11 bring about the necessary action by the Public Utilities
12 Commission to facilitate conversion.
13 --o0o--
14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
15 CHIEF KARPEROS: ISSRC has recommended a number of
16 approaches for reducing emissions that lack adequate
17 technical foundation. While the fundamental technologies
18 have merit, the ISSRC report assumed the broad
19 applicability of additional retrofit technology on
20 existing industrial equipment. These assumptions pose the
21 real-world engineering questions I described earlier.
22 Without addressing these questions through a
23 source-by-source analysis, a broad assumption is
24 inappropriate.
25 At the November 7th task force meeting, ISSRC
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 suggested further tightening of the already adopted
2 construction rule and proposed agricultural equipment
3 rule. Staff does not believe that suggestion has merit in
4 the present circumstances. In materials submitted to the
5 docket yesterday, that suggestion was not included, so
6 ISSRC may now have reached the same conclusion.
7 ISSRC has suggested using selective catalytic
8 reduction on all of the Valley's eight glass plants. One
9 plant is rebuilding now and will likely use SCR. The
10 remaining currently use what are so called oxy-fired
11 furnaces. ARB staff's research did not turn up any
12 examples of where SCR had been used in conjunction with
13 oxy-fired systems. Until the basic engineering analysis
14 has been done to determine if they can be used together,
15 it's inappropriate to assume SCR retrofits are technically
16 feasible.
17 In the meantime, the District's SIP targets
18 reflect the most stringent rule in the state. Staff will
19 follow the rule development process to encourage the
20 District to push aggressively. The District should also
21 consider SCR for the remaining plants during the next
22 rebuild cycle when the system can be engineered into the
23 plant most efficiently.
24 And, lastly, the ISSRC report suggests that the
25 district pursue the same emission limits for dryers and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 dehydrators that the South Coast has in its SIP. In fact,
2 the situation is reversed. The Valley has the state's
3 most stringent limit in the current rule and the South
4 Coast is proposing to lower its limit to match the
5 Valley's.
6 --o0o--
7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
8 CHIEF KARPEROS: Composting and livestock operations emit
9 large amounts of ROG. And while NOx reductions are
10 essential to attainment, ROG reductions from these sources
11 can contribute to air quality progress and reduced
12 localized nuisance impacts.
13 Reducing methane emissions from livestock
14 operations has significant potential to help California
15 meet its 2020 greenhouse gas target. Potential greenhouse
16 gas reductions from these strategies could also produce
17 ozone co-benefits. The climate change scoping plan
18 required next year under AB 32 will serve as a mechanism
19 for moving forward on further dairy emission reduction
20 opportunities.
21 Controlling emissions from green waste and
22 biosolid composting will be critical as these industries
23 seek to expand in the Valley. The economic setting of the
24 composting industry in California often results in this
25 waste being transported into the Valley, as real estate
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 values and regulations in other regions make local
2 handling cost prohibitive.
3 The District is working to reducing emissions
4 through best management practices. In order to balance
5 California's waste disposal and air quality needs,
6 handling green waste and biosolids should be addressed
7 through a multi-regional, multi-media approach.
8 --o0o--
9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
10 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now let me shift to the question of when
11 the Valley SIP must be submitted to EPA. The question has
12 come up repeatedly. And the practical deadline is driven
13 by the need to set transportation conformity budgets.
14 In June, we talked about the need for Valley COGs
15 to make conformity findings last October, ideally using
16 the new data in the SIP. After the June Board meeting,
17 staff consulted with EPA and Federal Highways
18 Administration and determined that COGs could do their
19 October conformity analysis using old emissions data. Two
20 COGs did that: San Joaquin and Kern counties. And the
21 Valley was able to work around the post-October SIP
22 submittal.
23 Using old data is no longer an option. Under
24 federal guidance, any conformity analyses started now must
25 use the latest, newest data. That is the data in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 current SIP.
2 Driving the timing of the COGs next conformity
3 analysis is the needed federal approval of the State's
4 Transportation Improvement Program in October 2008. The
5 federal transportation bill established new public process
6 requirements for transportation planning. To satisfy
7 these requirements, Caltrans has moved its schedule up
8 from October 1st to June 1st, 2008, for COGs to submit to
9 Caltrans locally-approved Transportation Improvement
10 Programs, or TIPs. This is critical.
11 --o0o--
12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
13 CHIEF KARPEROS: Backing up from a June 1st Caltrans
14 deadline means that COGs must adopt their Transportation
15 Improvement Programs by May.
16 So the COGs have to circulate their draft TIPs in
17 early 2008. And under federal public process
18 requirements, those TIPs must include conformity findings.
19 For that to be able to happen, EPA must have acted on the
20 budgets, finding them adequate for conformity. EPA has a
21 90-day process for reviewing budgets. They are aware of
22 the timing and are prepared to act.
23 If we submit the Valley SIP this month, we can
24 expect EPA's budget adequacy findings no later than mid to
25 late February, just in time for the COGs to move on their
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 Transportation Improvement Programs and get them to
2 Caltrans by the deadline.
3 As you can see, the timing is tight and we need
4 to forward the SIP to EPA as soon as possible.
5 --o0o--
6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
7 CHIEF KARPEROS: With the strengthened SIP, the Valley
8 will make good progress towards attainment. The remaining
9 challenge will require development and application of new
10 technologies, increased efficiency across all sectors of
11 the economy, and land use and transportation policies that
12 foster sustainable growth. Success will require the
13 ongoing engagement of ARB, the District, local government,
14 and the public.
15 Staff has proposed in our November 6 report a
16 series of specific recommendations for District, local
17 government, and ARB action to support such efforts. I'll
18 summarize them here.
19 First, new technology. Staff recommendations are
20 designed to speed the rate that new technologies are
21 pumped into the Valley's air quality programs. Both the
22 District and ARB have a role to play here.
23 For the District, we're recommending that it
24 expand its current efforts to find cutting-edge
25 technologies and get them into use. The District should
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 look for opportunities to expand the use of the
2 technologies identified in the draft ISSRC report.
3 Technology assessments are typically done by
4 engineers sitting at their desks. We recommend that the
5 District open that process up by periodically reviewing in
6 a public setting the current state of technology and the
7 potential for future development.
8 And in the same vein, ARB staff is working with
9 EPA and the District on a technology forum to be held in
10 the San Joaquin Valley in 2008. The goal is to showcase
11 the new technologies that will provide many of the
12 near-term emission reductions in the Valley's ozone SIP as
13 well as potential longer-term technology advancements.
14 Second, growth. The region is growing, with all
15 the impacts that brings on the Valley's environmental
16 resources. The region must develop cohesive land use and
17 transportation policies that foster sustainable growth.
18 Local government action is key here. But the District
19 should take a leadership role and engage with the other
20 local agencies to bring air quality concerns more broadly
21 into regional decision making. The region's nascent
22 blueprint can set the stage.
23 The Valley currently receives about 40 million
24 annually in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, or
25 CMAQ, funds. Local governments should give CMAQ funding
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 priority to projects that provide real cost-effective
2 emissions reductions.
3 And, finally, continued community outreach,
4 education, and focuses on the Valley.
5 The District has a public local task force in place today.
6 That is a good venue for further work to assess ways to
7 speed progress. So far, it has focused mostly on mobile
8 sources. Expanding its purview to include industrial
9 sources is a good idea.
10 ARB staff will continue to explicitly consider
11 the emission reduction needs of the Valley in rulemaking
12 and hold community-oriented public workshops in the Valley
13 on rulemaking, bond funding, climate change, and other
14 issues as they come forward.
15 And ARB staff plans to hold a community-oriented
16 Valley forum in 2008 on the science underlying
17 California's effort to improve air quality in the San
18 Joaquin Valley. The forum is planned for UC Merced to
19 facilitate academic participation and to support the
20 University as a locus for Valley scientific leadership on
21 air quality.
22 --o0o--
23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
24 CHIEF KARPEROS: Finally, the outlook for the Valley is
25 positive despite the enormity of the challenge.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 The adopted strengthened SIP will provide 90
2 percent progress towards attainment of the federal ozone
3 standard by 2017.
4 Staff's recommended District, local government,
5 and ARB actions will maintain focus on new technologies
6 needed to get the last 10 percent of the way to
7 attainment.
8 And while the legal attainment deadline remains,
9 ARB, District, and public efforts have cut the remaining
10 emission reduction challenge by over one-half in 2017 and
11 to just one-quarter in 2023 of what we faced earlier this
12 year.
13 Thank you. That concludes staff's presentation.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, thank you very much.
15 And clearly there has been a lot of good work
16 done and progress made, and we're really appreciative of
17 that. Obviously we're still not all the way where we need
18 to go. And what we're going to be talking about now I
19 think is ideas for how to continue to make progress.
20 And again just to clarify, there's no regulatory
21 action in front of us today. We're here having a
22 discussion. In these kinds of situation I always wish
23 that we weren't sitting up at this high dais, you know, in
24 a very formal kind of a proceeding. It's intended to add
25 dignity to the process, but it may make people feel a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 little bit less like we're actually, you know, in a
2 conversation. But I think at this point we really are
3 very much in conversation about what we can do. And
4 appreciate all of the people who have come today and are
5 hoping to give us good ideas.
6 Normally I would call next on the air pollution
7 control officer from the San Joaquin Valley. But I
8 understand that he's asked to comment last and to sort of
9 have an opportunity to respond to the other comments. And
10 I think that's fine.
11 So we will begin with David Lighthall from the
12 Central Valley Health Policy Institute at Cal State
13 University, Fresno, followed by Bonnie Holmes-Gen from the
14 American Lung Association and Brent Newell from the Center
15 on Race, Poverty & the Environment.
16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Madam Chairman?
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Before the first speaker
19 begins, could I correct --
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
21 Please do.
22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- an oversight on the
23 last item, where I should have reported a telephone call
24 also with Devra Wang of the NRDC. And that's on the
25 proposed regs to the commercial harbor craft.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: The record will be
2 corrected. Thank you.
3 Okay. Good morning.
4 DR. LIGHTHALL: Thank you, Chairman Nichols.
5 It's good to be here. My name's Dr. David Lighthall. I'm
6 a senior scientist for Environmental Health at the Central
7 Valley Health Policy Institute at CSU Fresno.
8 Over the course of the past 12 months I've been
9 closely involved in the development of the San Joaquin
10 Valley Ozone Attainment Plan. I'm currently a member of
11 the Valley Air District's Fast Track Task Force as well as
12 the ARB Air Quality Task Force for the San Joaquin Valley.
13 Before providing my central observations here and
14 recommendations, I'd like to express my appreciation to
15 the leadership of Board members DeDe D'Adamo and Judy
16 Case. And I'd also like to thank ARB staff, including
17 Lynn Terry and Kurt Karperos. They've done a very good
18 job in helping us sort through a lot of very complex
19 issues.
20 So first point, there's a fundamental question I
21 think regarding the proposed San Joaquin Valley Ozone
22 Attainment Plan: Does the plan, which has adopted an
23 extreme 2024 attainment date, provide the most powerful
24 means of accelerating the path to ozone compliance.
25 Setting aside for the time being the significant
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 barriers to meeting the U.S. EPA's threshold criteria for
2 a severe attainment plan with a 2017 deadline, discussion
3 with air district and ARB staff and our Air Quality Task
4 Force meeting on November 7 indicated that many businesses
5 that would face emission reductions under an extreme 2024
6 plan will in fact not be regulated under a severe 2017
7 plan.
8 This reduced leverage on emission sources under a
9 severe plan raises the risk of a lower rate of yearly
10 reduction in NOx and ROG. In turn, this could mean that
11 we would be further from ozone attainment by 2017 under a
12 severe plan than if we were to adopt an extreme plan as
13 proposed that would have tougher emission controls.
14 As most observers would likely agree, there's a
15 very high probability that U.S. EPA will be lowering its
16 national ambient air quality standard for ozone in the
17 next several years. Achieving attainment by 2017 under
18 this new standard is even more problematic. In the
19 meantime, we need to put into place the strongest and most
20 inconclusive air quality regulations possible in order to
21 maximize the yearly rate of tonnage reductions in ozone
22 precursors.
23 Second point. As is apparent, environmental and
24 community groups will continue to place a great deal of
25 pressure on the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 District to maximize control measures on sources under its
2 jurisdiction. However, to the extent that ozone arises
3 from mobile source in consumer product emissions, Valley
4 ozone attainment will depend on the Air Resources Board
5 making difficult decisions. The recent adoption of the
6 off-road mobile source rule's an excellent start. I know
7 that was a difficult decision.
8 Third. Given the low carrying capacity for air
9 pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, rapid development and
10 adoption of new technologies will be critical to the
11 earliest possible attainment of ozone standard. I am
12 pleased to see that ARB staff has proposed a leadership
13 role for the Agency in serving as a catalyst for
14 technological innovation in the Valley.
15 And fourth and final point. The other key
16 element for early attainment will be incentive funds for
17 accelerated emission reductions. As is painfully apparent
18 here in California, creating new funding sources to
19 achieve collective social benefits is increasingly
20 difficult. ARB is in an excellent position to serve as an
21 objective source of scientific justification for
22 cost-effective public investments in emission reductions
23 program.
24 As in the case of technological development, I
25 would strongly encourage ARB to play a leadership role in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 evaluating fiscal options for emission reduction programs
2 and bringing these findings to the attention of California
3 decision makers and the public.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for your
6 comments.
7 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, followed by Brent Newell and
8 Tim Carmichael.
9 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning, Chairman Nichols
10 and Board members. Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American
11 Lung Association of California.
12 And we'd like to start off by thanking you for
13 adopting the strengthened state SIP strategy that you did
14 adopt, and we really appreciate the work that has gone
15 into that.
16 But we are here today to urge you to do
17 everything possible to achieve attainment in the Valley by
18 the 2017 deadline. And we recognize that even the current
19 federal standards are really not health protective enough.
20 I just wanted to reiterate that point that was just made,
21 that we are -- the American Lung Association is pushing
22 for more stringent federal ozone standards as part of this
23 federal ozone review -- federal review of the standards.
24 We are especially concerned about pushing hard
25 toward attainment in the Valley because of the serious
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 health conditions, the prevalence of asthma and
2 respiratory illnesses in the Valley, and that these -- the
3 conditions in the Valley are resulting in high levels of
4 hospital emergency room visits, missed school and work
5 days, and premature death. And I know, as you've heard
6 many times, that the asthma prevalence is a serious
7 concern, with one in five children in the Valley
8 experiencing asthma. And this results in billions of
9 dollars of course in health care costs.
10 We are very encouraged by the CARB's staff
11 estimate that the attainment gap has decreased and that
12 you've gotten that gap down to 49 tons per day by 2017.
13 And We're glad that the shortfall has shrunk and we
14 appreciate the staff work and the work of the task force
15 that has gone into developing measures to reduce that gap.
16 And we appreciate and applaud that work.
17 But I think that what this shows is that with a
18 little more time and focused effort we can develop more
19 solutions to get that gap down even further and to achieve
20 that 2017 deadline. We don't want to see another
21 generation of children grow up in the Valley with dirty
22 air. We need to find solutions now. We are so close to
23 accomplishing the task. We believe that it's just
24 premature to give up now.
25 So we'd like to join with the other Valley
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 representatives that are here today and request the Board
2 to direct staff to continue to convene this task force,
3 with tremendous participation that you've had, and to
4 create that plan together to get the Valley to the
5 attainment date of 2017. And we also would join in the
6 request that the Board hold the public hearing on this
7 matter in the San Joaquin Valley, so that you can have
8 more of that spirit of dialogue with the community that I
9 know that you do want to have.
10 We think there's been a lot of good solutions put
11 on the table: The Clean Air Days, ag engines, SCR, low
12 NOx burners, a lot of good solutions. And we urge you to
13 do the engineering and other analyses that you are talking
14 about today to answer those questions, to take the next
15 steps, to evaluate those measures and develop them and
16 include them in the SIP.
17 We appreciate your Board's clear concern about
18 the plight of Valley residents and we appreciate that
19 progress has been made. And we're just asking you to
20 continue the dialogue and to not give up with this.
21 Thank you for the time.
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
23 Brent Newell, followed by Tim Carmichael and Nick
24 Robinson.
25 MR. NEWELL: Good morning, Madam Chair, members
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 of the Board. My name is Brent Newell and I'm with the
2 Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment.
3 I respectfully request that the Board take action
4 at a future hearing to amend the plan, using its authority
5 under California state law, and hold that hearing in the
6 Valley, and also in the evening so that working families
7 can attend and participate.
8 The Board resolution in June of this year
9 directed staff to include an evaluation of the Clean Air
10 Days operational control restrictions. This report that
11 you have before you today does not include an evaluation
12 of operational controls. There are two sentences in the
13 introduction that discuss how the district is going to
14 pursue voluntary controls. Mandatory operational controls
15 can get us much closer and close that 49-ton-per-day gap
16 that we have in 2017.
17 There are other recommendations that ISSRC has
18 made that have been discounted in this report. Those are
19 viable pollution control reductions that a representative
20 from ISSRC will further discuss later.
21 Chairman Sawyer asked specifically from the dais
22 to evaluate operational controls. Staff hasn't done that.
23 We respectfully ask the Board to really dig into this very
24 important pollution control reduction concept that can
25 help Valley residents and children breathe air sooner.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 You have the authority under state law, under the
2 Health and Safety Code, to amend the air district's plan.
3 In Health and Safety Code section 41652, the Board has the
4 authority to actually rewrite portions of the plan, insert
5 provisions, and then send it on to EPA. The Board can and
6 should do its duty under this provision. Since 1990, the
7 Board has never used that authority to amend an air
8 district plan or rule. Meanwhile, the Board has sent
9 rules and plans to EPA that EPA has disapproved for
10 violating the Clean Air Act.
11 At the June hearing I submitted a list into the
12 record that showed more than 100 air district rules from
13 California being disapproved by EPA for violating the
14 Clean Air Act. In 1997, the Board sent in the Valley PM10
15 Plan, that EPA could not approve because it exempted
16 agricultural sources. Instead, EPA stuck it in a drawer
17 for five years.
18 The Board needs to do its duty to protect the
19 public health, the health of children in the Valley.
20 Valley residents expected the Board to do the duty that
21 the Legislature told you to do. The Legislature drafted
22 and passed section 41652 and 41650. Please do your duty.
23 Don't put this off until 2024. We can and we should get
24 there by 2017.
25 (Applause.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thanks for
2 meeting your three-minute deadline too. That was right on
3 the button.
4 Okay. Tim Carmichael, Nick Robinson, Daniela
5 Simunovic.
6 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Chairman Nichols,
7 members of the Board. Tim Carmichael with the Coalition
8 for Clean Air.
9 First of all, I want to recognize the hard work
10 that's gone into this effort. And we greatly appreciate
11 the staff time and Board members D'Adamo and Case's
12 participation throughout.
13 But with that, we also strongly oppose a
14 premature conclusion to this task force effort. You know,
15 the Fresno Bee today has an editorial on this topic, and
16 it's good, and you should read it if you haven't. But it
17 notes that last spring the District reported to everybody
18 that they turned over every stone and they were a hundred
19 tons short of attainment. ARB got quite engaged this
20 summer. The task force got quite engaged this late summer
21 and fall. And we cut that in half. And we are very
22 appreciative of that effort. But it leaves everybody with
23 this, you know, sense that, a little bit more time, more
24 is possible.
25 You may not be aware that most people did not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 receive the staff report until the afternoon before the
2 last task force meeting. That was not helpful for people
3 to have a very good conversation at the last task force
4 meeting. And I know that, you know, staff was doing their
5 best and they were under a lot of pressure with a lot of
6 information to juggle. But for us that, you know, is
7 another reason why it makes sense to continue this process
8 going a little bit longer. There were a lot of unanswered
9 questions at that task force meeting. In fact, when we
10 met with staff last week on multiple topics, but talked
11 about this, there were a lot of unanswered questions in
12 that discussion.
13 And we just believe that, you know, with so much
14 positive energy around this effort to date, it would be a
15 big mistake to end it prematurely. And, frankly, I think
16 it would leave a lot of people with a sour taste in their
17 mouth about the lost potential, the missed opportunity
18 here.
19 The last thought that I want to share is that the
20 staff reported to us that they did not do exactly as Ms.
21 D'Adamo highlighted as one of the goals for the task force
22 earlier today. She noted that one of the goals, I think
23 it was Goal 4, was to focus on to have a full discussion
24 of the opportunities to accelerate pollution reductions.
25 When we talked with the staff about that, they said what
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 they did in fact was they looked at the District measures
2 relative to other districts in the state and they did a
3 comparative analysis, which is valuable. And we
4 appreciate that they did that. But that's not the same as
5 what we all believed the task force was going to take on.
6 And that, you know, undone element is critical.
7 Thank you very much.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
9 Nick Robinson, Daniela Simunovic, Carolina
10 Simunovic.
11 MR. ROBINSON: Good morning and thank you. My
12 name is Nick Robinson and I'm here today simply as a
13 Merced resident. I'm also here on behalf of numerous
14 other Merced residents who were unable to take the day off
15 of work and leave their families to drive to Sacramento to
16 be here today.
17 As you know, on November 7th over 70 Merced
18 residents attended ARB's community meeting in Merced. Our
19 overwhelming message was that Merced expects you to
20 deliver a SIP with a legally enforceable attainment date
21 of 2017. As north Valley residents, our air may be
22 virtually clean by 2017. But we're not willing to allow
23 the volumes of residents of Arvin and other cities in the
24 south Valley to continue to subsidize our pollution.
25 I'm not here to tell you the stories of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 devastating health impacts of delayed ozone attainment,
2 stories like those of 29-year-old Merced resident Natasha
3 Wade, a five months pregnant mother of two who died
4 suddenly from what her family believes was a severe asthma
5 attack last Wednesday. We can only hope that you
6 understand the weight of your decision with this plan.
7 We also hope that you use your rulemaking
8 authority to make the task force recommendations and your
9 own land-use recommendations mandatory and legally
10 enforceable. One example of your own land-use handbook
11 rules is South Coast Rules 4101.1 and 4201.1, which make
12 land-use handbook recommendations about the siting of high
13 polluting industry into rules.
14 I also want to raise two process points. First
15 is the growing distrust between our community and air
16 district and ARB staff. One reason for this disconnect is
17 that we don't feel listened to. At our community meeting
18 we were assured that our comments would be recorded and
19 transcribed for you. Upon hearing this, another Merced
20 resident immediately began taking notes. To our
21 knowledge, the meeting wasn't recorded. I have those
22 notes for you today to look at. And I hope you read them
23 before making your decision.
24 Second is our hope that Valley residents most
25 affected by this plan are allowed adequate opportunity to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 participate. Please hold another hearing in the Valley
2 before submitting this SIP to EPA.
3 So just to conclude, please listen to the
4 community. Listen to ISSRC and other experts who have
5 demonstrated that a 2017 plan is economically and
6 technically feasible. Our community has invested an
7 incredible amount of time and energy into this plan. Give
8 us the time to finish the job.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair, I have a
12 comment on the commitment to record the meeting.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, thank you.
14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just like to note
15 that I believe one of the stakeholder groups in
16 preparation for the meeting did ask us to record the
17 meeting and staff had committed to doing so. We learned
18 after the meeting was underway that there was an oversight
19 and in fact we were not recording the meeting. So I made
20 that announcement and I did see that someone attempted to
21 put a recording device on the table. But I really doubt
22 that we were able to fully capture the comments that were
23 made.
24 So I do apologize for that. We did not record
25 the other meetings or the task force meetings. It was a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 commitment that was made because I felt that it was a
2 reasonable request. But then, you know, an oversight
3 resulted in us not actually recording it.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I do have a partial
5 transcript of a Merced meeting in my packet. And actually
6 I was going to --
7 MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC: Those were community
8 residents that -- to get on -- to create notes to get to
9 you. And that was what was submitted. It was a community
10 leader who stood up and took notes. So initiative from
11 the community again.
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
13 MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC: With that, I'm Daniela
14 Simunovic and I am with the Center on Race, Poverty & the
15 Environment in Delano, California, in the San Joaquin
16 Valley.
17 I'm here today -- and I'm happy that I'm here
18 today on one hand because in June when we stood before
19 your Board in Fresno providing testimony, we were told
20 that that was it, that it was such a tight timeline and
21 every stone had been unturned and there was no further
22 reductions. And thanks to some Board members -- one Board
23 member who was able to stand up against the 2024 and
24 others who at least gave us the chance of developing a
25 task force to further look at reductions that could be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 achieved were here before you today.
2 We embarked as advocates and community residents
3 on this task force process cautiously optimistic. Our
4 hope was that we would be able to close the reduction gap.
5 And we have been. In the past coming months we've been
6 able to close the reduction gap both from additional
7 measures by ARB, that we are grateful for, and both by
8 adjustments to the inventory that were incorrect and that
9 were overstated. And we are now at a 49-ton shortfall of
10 NOx reductions needed. And we feel that to raise the
11 white flag right now and to say, "This is it. We have to
12 approve the plan, 49 is good enough" is condemning a
13 generation of children in particular in Arvin, the
14 community who has often throughout this entire process
15 been treated -- and as community residents attested to at
16 the meeting there -- unfortunately there is no official
17 record of that meeting -- but as residents have often
18 felt, they have been treated like the bad child in the
19 family who -- "Well, everybody else is going to attain" --
20 "90 percent of the Valley is going to attain by 2017. But
21 it's that last 10 percent, it's just Arvin."
22 And those are statements from residents that
23 residents shared yesterday with officials from the EPA
24 that came to meet with them. And these are comments that
25 unfortunately they have to depend on me to bring to you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 today because they cannot be here.
2 So on those points, I would like to ask of the
3 Board that you continue to convene meetings of the ARB
4 task force to continue to look at additional reductions as
5 recommended by ISSRC's report that show that we can close
6 that 49 ton gap and get a SIP-enforceable plan to EPA.
7 We also ask that you hold -- you postpone making
8 a decision on submittal to the EPA today until you can
9 hold a meeting at some later time in the San Joaquin
10 Valley.
11 And in regards to also continuing the ARB
12 process, we ask and we reiterate the importance of
13 continuing to have the ARB as the vehicle convening these
14 meetings, as the initial actual reason many Board members
15 cited as -- supporting the task force was the distrust
16 that community residents had stated with their local air
17 district. And we feel that the ARB is the legitimate
18 entity to continue in good faith with this process.
19 And on behalf of many residents of the San
20 Joaquin Valley that were unable to be here today in
21 preparing for this meeting, you know, we believe in
22 incentives, and then school teachers provide positive
23 incentives and negative incentives for children. And in
24 the Valley we've been, you know -- we were positive, we
25 were very positive with the formation of the task force.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 We think that there's a lot of work to be done. And we
2 are prepared -- we've prepared two types of awards. One
3 is the good -- first start award that we would award to
4 staff and ARB members in the case that you heed to -- that
5 you work with us in this last leg of the race, to not
6 raise the white flag, and to try to close this 49-ton
7 shortfall.
8 Unfortunately the other award that I really don't
9 want to give you because we respect you as folks, but
10 we -- as decision makers, we feel that you are accountable
11 to us and that we haven't really been heard, that over 39
12 percent of the Valley residents who in the latest field
13 polls said air pollution was the primary concern, and the
14 residents of Arvin who couldn't be here today, you are
15 accountable to us and we have to keep you with bad awards.
16 And we also have a jellyfish award that we would
17 like to not give you. And it basically says that, you
18 know, we would give you this in the sense that we felt
19 that you didn't have the guts to stand up for us. We know
20 that the California Health and Safety Code gives you those
21 guts. We're just asking you to use them, because we know
22 as advocates you -- unfortunately, we're not on the dais.
23 You're on the dais representing us. And overwhelmingly --
24 over a hundred people turned out at the Arvin meeting, add
25 that to the 70 who turned out in Merced, add that to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 hundreds who provided testimony to both the air district
2 and the ARB, and overwhelmingly the message there 2024 is
3 condemnation to death.
4 So we ask you to take this into consideration.
5 And thank you for your time.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
7 On behalf of lovers of jellyfish everywhere, I
8 want to protest your use of the jellyfish as your negative
9 incentive. But aside from that, appreciate your comments.
10 Okay. Carolina Simunovic, followed by Ron Silva
11 Kate Stevens.
12 MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC: Thank you. My name is
13 Carolina Simunovic and I am Environmental Health Director
14 with Fresno Metro Ministry. And I'm also one of the moms
15 that feels guilty about living in the San Joaquin Valley
16 and worrying about how my daughter's health will be
17 affected by the pollution that we breathe.
18 I want to echo Kurt's comments. A lot has
19 happened since June and -- you know, and a lot of us, like
20 many stated before, were very hopeful in terms of the
21 beginnings of this task force process. We were eager to
22 see CARB very involved in what was going on in the Valley.
23 And as advocates who are growing in capacity but have for
24 the most part lacked the technical resources to give you
25 the right recommendations over the years, we welcomed the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 participation of ISSRC and again a cooperative ARB staff
2 to look at the information from a technical perspective
3 and give us feedback. It was wonderful having that team
4 around the table. And you saw the results earlier last
5 month when we were able to strengthen the SIP somewhat.
6 You know, from my viewpoint, ISSRC and Dr. Jim
7 Lents was able to see things outside of the box. It was
8 special too since he was one of the people that helped
9 build those boxes, having submitted his first SIP in the
10 '70s and then helping to draft the, you know, 1990 Clean
11 Air Act. His perspective I think and the Research Center
12 was very, very useful. And they've presented numerous
13 recommendations for ARB staff review, and some that
14 unfortunately have not been looked at. And there have
15 been documents submitted to you now recently outlining
16 those control measures.
17 Unfortunately, after the last meeting, many of us
18 felt that the tone changed. It was like the job was done.
19 We enhanced the mobile part to the SIP, and the Valley got
20 some reductions, the South Coast area got some reductions.
21 But since then, when we've had to take some time to look
22 at the stationary source side of things, it was different.
23 Like was mentioned earlier, the report that was received
24 at 4 o'clock the day before the meeting, after we'd been
25 hearing and expected having it be complete the week before
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 and having a chance to review it, you know, it leaves me
2 with a sense that things were missing. I would have loved
3 to have seen earlier drafts of the report to see what was
4 there.
5 I shared with you a Fresno Bee editorial, the one
6 that Tim alluded to. And I think the comments there
7 states many of the frustrations of Valley residents,
8 including my own. Throughout this process there was a lot
9 of uncertainty in terms of timeliness, in terms of, you
10 know, are the conformity budgets -- when are they needed,
11 for what? When did the sanction clock start? It was a
12 community trying to understand some of these things, and
13 in many ways getting inaccurate or misleading information
14 from several different sides.
15 And the one agency that could have helped to
16 clarify that, EPA, unfortunately was not at this
17 roundtable discussion. And that -- you know, hindsight is
18 20/20. They should have probably been there, been invited
19 to participate. And when we've asked them why they were
20 not, they said, you know, that they were not invited.
21 I just want to highlight one of the
22 recommendations in the report, which is for updating the
23 BACT thresholds. And that's a recommendations that ARB
24 has given the District now I think it's the third time.
25 It was in the audit before and it was in some documents
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 years earlier. And the District has not acted on that in
2 all of these years. So, you know, how many times do you
3 have to recommend something before it happens? When can
4 the oversight authority that ARB has come into play? When
5 can we start, you know, getting down to some of the things
6 that can cause tension but that are necessary for clean
7 air?
8 We were hoping that we would, through this task
9 force and through your efforts, do everything that was
10 possible. I think the information before you today shows
11 that there is more that is possible that can be done.
12 And to finish with what the Fresno Bee says, you
13 know, the ARB owes the Valley every ounce of effort --
14 every ounce of its effort. And I hope that we get that.
15 And I think that, given the time, we will.
16 So please do not submit the plan as is. Thank
17 you.
18 (Applause.)
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We generally ask people,
20 you know, not to applaud or boo at Board meetings. If you
21 can avoid it, I'd appreciate it.
22 I want to note that I'm planning to break for
23 lunch at 11:50 today because of the Chair's briefing that
24 I mentioned that's going to be going on in the adjoining
25 room.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 But I know that our court reporter, who's been on
2 duty here since 9 -- and I'm wondering if you need a
3 break.
4 You're willing to continue on until 11:50?
5 Okay. Then we'll just forge ahead.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. SILVA: Good morning, Chairman Nichols,
8 Board. My name's Ron Silva. I'm with Westar Transport.
9 I run a small trucking company, some call it medium, out
10 of the San Joaquin Valley. Been there for 27 years in
11 Selma, California. And these new truck rules that are in
12 the works has created the biggest fear I've had for my
13 family and my business ever since it ever started.
14 I could join the rest of the environmentalists
15 earlier because I breathe the same air as all of us. But
16 I am really concerned about the economic damage that some
17 of these regulations will have.
18 And while staff does a great job, and I can
19 appreciate the -- I wouldn't want their job. I always
20 thought mine was the toughest. I'm convinced now there's
21 is the toughest and yours is the toughest.
22 How do you get clean air for everybody in this
23 state without doing huge economic damage? That's going to
24 be the challenge. Roughly right now we're looking at --
25 my particular company, my debt service if I try to meet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 those regulations goes from about 50,000 a year to about a
2 million dollars a year. So I'm bankrupt before I even buy
3 them. I couldn't even get the money. That's what we're
4 facing. That's a reality.
5 So that's the first note that I really had.
6 The second note is, while we're spending a lot of
7 time and money in trying to craft regulations, we're going
8 through the entire process. What I don't think we're
9 doing as a state is looking at all our alternatives. And
10 the alternative I'm talking about, and a couple of the
11 Board members are aware of it, is short-sea shipping.
12 It's a new mode of transportation. I looked at three
13 years now trying to develop the money just to do the
14 study -- three years. We're talking about a deadline of
15 2017 or 2024. We've wasted three years of something that
16 can take 40 tons of NOx out of the Valley, and we could
17 have almost built it by now.
18 So all I ask is that we use very open minds and
19 look at all the alternatives and put a foot forward and
20 say we need to go after every ton that we possibly can.
21 Now, it's not the silver bullet. But I do
22 believe this state is due for a new mode of
23 transportation, and I think we need to put our efforts
24 forward to make sure, if it can be done, we need to really
25 work to do it. And the only answer that we don't leave is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 maybe wiping out the trucking industry.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
4 Can I just ask you a question. I'm not sure what
5 your suggestion was.
6 MR. SILVA: Well, short-sea shipping is the new
7 mode of transportation, moving cargo by water --
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, I see.
9 MR. SILVA: -- basically is the start-up. And I
10 would love to come and do a presentation for you,
11 Chairman.
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you very much.
13 I appreciate that.
14 Okay. Kate Stevens, followed by Alvin Valeriano
15 and Sarah Sharpe.
16 MS. STEVENS: Good morning. My name is Katy
17 Stevens and I'm the Government Affairs Representative of
18 the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. I
19 also support Mark Keppler of the of the Maddy Institute in
20 his role as lead staff consultant for the Air Quality Work
21 Group. And I serve on the San Joaquin Valley Air District
22 Fast Track Task Force.
23 For more than a year the partnership Air Quality
24 Work Group labored to try to find a path to attainment
25 that would have avoided the need for a bump up to extreme.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 I know of no one who wanted to go there. Environmental
2 advocacy groups didn't want to go there. Industry and
3 agricultural groups, particularly agricultural groups,
4 didn't want to go there because of the increased
5 permitting and Title 5 requirements.
6 But reality got in the way. As of April this
7 year when the air district 8-hour ozone plan was due, we
8 had identified no legally approvable path that would
9 enable us to avoid the black box. For the last
10 six months, through the ARB Dual Path Task Force and the
11 Air District Fast Track Task Force, we have continued to
12 search for a legally viable path without success. As
13 disappointing as that is, we have reconciled ourselves to
14 the need to proceed with a jump up in designation, not
15 only because that is what reality requires, but because
16 the increased permitting requirements that go with extreme
17 designation will help us get to attainment sooner.
18 The good news is that, as you have heard, the
19 process led by Board Members D'Adamo and Case has led to a
20 significant reduction in the attainment gap. It has also
21 helped us identity a number of strategies that we believe
22 will enable us to accelerate attainment. They may not be
23 SIP creditable strategies today. But with hard work and
24 funding, it will enable us to make them SIP creditable in
25 the future.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 And the ARB report indicating that the Air
2 District rules are as stringent as any in California gives
3 us confidence that we are on the right path.
4 I want to thank the Board, particularly Board Members
5 D'Adamo and Case, for partnering with the Valley in search
6 for these solutions. And I also want to thank the ARB
7 staff for their hard work.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate
10 that.
11 And we'll hear now from Alvin Valeriano and then
12 Sarah Sharpe and Nidia Bautista.
13 MR. VALERIANO: I am a little nervous so I
14 brought my hero here with me.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Sorry we don't have an
16 easel for you. But you can put it on the chair, and maybe
17 we could all look at it.
18 MR. VALERIANO: Maybe over here. We'll park
19 Arnold down.
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
21 MR. VALERIANO: Madam Chair Nichols, members of
22 the Board. Thank you very much for this opportunity to
23 express my views on why attainment of the 8-hour ozone
24 standard can occur by 2017.
25 My name is Alvin Valeriano. I am a resident of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 Fresno. I work with Dr. James Lents and Nicole Davis of
2 the International Sustainable Systems Research Center,
3 which provided invaluable technical analysis for earlier
4 attainment of the ozone standard in San Joaquin Valley.
5 Prior to this, I worked with the San Joaquin Valley Air
6 Pollution Control District for four and a half years in
7 rule and plan development.
8 When this Board was deliberating to approve the
9 San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan, it appeared that there
10 was no other choice but to go to extreme status with a
11 2024 attainment, because it was not technically feasible
12 to have earlier attainment.
13 This morning it's great to hear ARB staff
14 actually express somewhat of a sea change. When you were
15 deliberating approving the 2007 ozone plan, you heard it
16 was not technically possible. Today, they are saying
17 that, well, the problem is that you have to look at it on
18 a case-by-case basis. Okay, so that's a big difference,
19 very, very big difference.
20 By the way, looking at it on a case-by-case basis
21 is not what the District and ARB do when they do plan
22 development. They try their best as possible to look at
23 the inventory at the existing rules, at the existing
24 limits, and then see what technologies are being used.
25 Okay. The logical thing to do is to look at what
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 is the next step up as far as that technology. That's all
2 you can do. That's the best thing you can do in plan
3 development. When you want to go through rule
4 development, then you can look at those itty-bitty, tiny
5 differences that you find. But that's all you can do in
6 plan development. Otherwise you'll never finish a plan.
7 Okay.
8 So I believe that before you is a table which
9 says pollution sources, control technology, cost
10 effectiveness, and availability status. Let me go through
11 that real quickly.
12 Glassmaking, the best technology is SCR. There
13 will be one in the Valley. And it is common practice in
14 Europe and Japan to use SCR in glassmaking facilities.
15 IC engines. SCR is -- with no question can be
16 used for stationary engines. The Valley is electrifying a
17 lot of the motorists now in order to reduce NOx pollution.
18 That's great.
19 And there are numbers there that show you what
20 the cost effectiveness of these technologies are: 3,000
21 to 4,000 for SCR for glassmaking; 6,000 to 7,000 per ton
22 at 3,000 hours for using SCR technology. This is
23 Achieved-in-Practice BACT, which is what they will be
24 trying to determine in the future. It's achieved in
25 practice, no doubt.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You are running out of
2 time. I'd appreciate if you could summarize your --
3 MR. VALERIANO: Yes, I will. Thank you very
4 much.
5 The point is that in this table you'll see Europe
6 and Japan there a lot. In Europe and Japan they are very
7 keen on using the most advanced technology. Why are we
8 not doing that? Do they know something better than we do.
9 I think that Americans -- as an immigrant here, I
10 admire American ingenuity. Let's not give up on this one.
11 We need a little bit more time to evaluate these new
12 technologies.
13 Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
15 Okay. Sarah Sharpe, Nidia Bautista, Jim
16 Ganduglia.
17 MS. SHARPE: Good morning. My name is Sarah
18 Sharpe. I'm with the Coalition for Clean Air from the
19 Fresno office.
20 I'm going to begin my comments with a short quote
21 of Alvin's hero, our Governor Schwarzenegger. And this
22 was a quote that he stated in June of this year.
23 It's: "When one out of six residents in the San
24 Joaquin Valley has been diagnosed with asthma and one in
25 five children carry an inhaler to school, it is a call to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 action." And I agree with that quote wholeheartedly.
2 The Governor has kept good on his word, so far as
3 we can tell, with his signature of SB 719, some
4 legislation that we were working on, and the appointment
5 of our new Board Chair, Mary Nichols. And he is counting
6 on you to continue to do this for him. Not only is the
7 Governor counting on you, but thousands if not millions of
8 Valley residents are counting on you to exhaust all
9 options for cleaning the air before you throw in the towel
10 on the San Joaquin Valley SIP.
11 As you know, as my colleagues have mentioned, we
12 are concerned with a plan that can't legally prove we will
13 get to attainment until 2024. Through the task force
14 process that was created in June as a part of the
15 resolution to approve the SIP, we have found that there
16 were indeed many more stones left to be turned, meaning
17 more reductions to be found and included in the SIP. Some
18 of those stones have been included in your staff's report
19 today, but unfortunately many were not.
20 We are pleased to see that the gap for attainment
21 in 2017 has gone from 202 tons per day to 49 tons per day.
22 This gives us a real hope that with hard work,
23 determination, and strong leadership from your Board, we
24 can continue to find ways to achieve the final 49 tons per
25 day, both through emission reductions and adjustments to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 the inventory.
2 For this reason we respectfully request that you
3 do not accept the CARB staff report as it is today, and
4 direct them to continue the task that they started in June
5 until it is complete.
6 In addition, we specifically request that you
7 direct the staff not to submit the San Joaquin Valley
8 portion of the plan to EPA yet until it has been
9 thoroughly determined whether or not we need to make
10 amendments to the plan.
11 And I want to thank Alvin and ISSRC for outlining
12 some of the questions that still remain to be answered.
13 We believe there are amendments that could be
14 made which would also make it possible to reclassify our
15 region to severe instead of extreme.
16 And, finally, I was not a member of the ARB task
17 force, although I did attend all the meetings. But I am a
18 member of the District's task force. And I heard the
19 staff's recommendation that we shift this work over to
20 that task force. And I don't believe shifting this effort
21 to a new group that has not already been involved in this
22 process -- there are some of the same members, but many
23 different members. And we also have our own long list of
24 tasks that we are working on. I don't think it would be
25 appropriate or effective. This task force needs to stay
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 in tact for a few more months. As it is, the ARB task
2 force with the leadership of your Board members, I know
3 that you may not have time. And also the staff.
4 And so I want to ask you to please consider these
5 missed opportunities in your deliberations today.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
8 Nidia Bautista, Jim Ganduglia, and Mark Keppler.
9 MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you, Chair Nichols, members
10 of the Board, staff, and audience. Nidia Bautista with
11 the Coalition for Clean Air here in Sacramento offices.
12 I'm here today to reiterate some of what our
13 colleagues have shared with you, which is -- you know,
14 through good faith we've been participating in the task
15 force process. I think the intent of the June hearing
16 back in Fresno was that we would be investigating all
17 feasible measures. We talked about, you know, turning
18 over all the stones. We talked about the piggy bank --
19 and I have one for you and I have one for each of you --
20 that we wanted to collect all the coins. I think there
21 was an acknowledgement that we may not be able to find a
22 hundred dollars bill. But if we find a $50 bill combined
23 with a $20 combined with a 50 cents here, that that would
24 get us to our goal.
25 And I want to just say that we are so close in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 the final stretch and we need ARB's leadership to get us
2 to that finish line.
3 And comments that you've heard earlier, I think
4 it was a real challenge for us to kind of look through the
5 ARB staff report just a few hours. We did sit through the
6 task force hearing to get to answer our questions.
7 Unfortunately a lot of them still remain unresolved. We
8 raised questions about the feasibility of some of the
9 measures. There wasn't a real clear response on some of
10 the ISSRC recommendations in the report.
11 We were also really looking for some
12 quantifiable, the potential from ARB staff. What are the
13 potentials for cleaning up the air if we tighten up these
14 measures? And I think we're not there yet. And I do
15 believe that with a couple more meetings we can get there.
16 And maybe it's just a matter of us getting a better
17 understanding. And so I'm open to hearing that. But as
18 of now we've not gotten those responses -- those answers.
19 On a couple of examples -- let me just share with
20 you something for you to be mindful of. Glass melting
21 furnaces, which has been raised, is definitely a measure
22 that I think ARB staff acknowledges can be strengthened.
23 But yet they're saying, "Well, the District's already
24 working on it." The District may be working on its rule.
25 But even in the previous -- in the couple years ago when
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 it did work on that rule, even though ARB recommended
2 something stronger, the District still adopted something
3 that it acknowledged in its own notes all of the existing
4 sources already comply with this rule.
5 So even though ARB asked them to apply a stronger
6 measure, and they could have, which would have been in
7 line with what the rest of the state was doing, the
8 District chose not to. And instead it chose to adopt
9 basically a paperwork regulation.
10 So to that end -- that's just one example.
11 Composting is another one. We think there's a lot of
12 opportunity there. And just saying that it's going to
13 require a multi-regional and multi-media approach is not
14 sufficient. Why is it that other districts have adopted
15 rules on composting? And why should the valley be any
16 different in that regard?
17 And also we should be comparing rules that are
18 all on the books regardless of how they're attacking the
19 sources in terms of the Sacramento region has some tighter
20 rules that were not reflected in the ARB staff report.
21 And that did come to light in our effort to actually get
22 more information from ARB staff. And we do appreciate
23 that they made themselves available to us to try to do
24 that. But, again, on this shortened time frame it was a
25 real challenge. And I think also a challenge for them,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 because I think that it was challenging for them to try to
2 put this all together in just the limited time that they
3 have, even though I know that your directive came in June.
4 The other measure is turbine rules. Though the
5 District did adopt a stronger rule on turbines recently
6 that actually went beyond their SIP commitment, they have
7 not actually put that new -- they have not reflected that
8 new adoption into their SIP. "And why does that matter?"
9 someone would say. "Well, you're going to get to clean
10 air. Look it, they're adopting great rules." Well, it
11 matters because in the end, if you do the math, basically
12 that will relax the pressure off any of the other
13 commitments. In other words they can say that they're
14 only going to get less than a ton on turbines, and then
15 they adopt a measure that actually gets you more than a
16 ton. Well, that means that they can take the pressure off
17 some of the other sources that they committed to in the
18 SIP. And that's the important piece and I think that
19 that's the value of the SIP, is that it's a plan, it's a
20 goal, it's what we're going to push ourselves to get.
21 We recognize that it may not be really easy, but
22 we do think it is possible.
23 And I just want to remind you, now going back to
24 our piggy bank, I think we're really there, we're really,
25 really close. And so we just need just a couple more
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 meetings to actually get us to fill it up so that we can
2 buy that clean air that we need.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
5 Jim Ganduglia, Mark Keppler, Sean Edgar.
6 MR. GANDUGLIA: Thank you, Chairwoman Nichols. I
7 represent -- Jim Ganduglia. I represent the California
8 Trucking Association, but I'm going to talk from Jim
9 Ganduglia of Ganduglia Trucking.
10 We're going to talk about economic impact because
11 that hasn't been talked about very much today. And I'm
12 going to talk about 2010, December 31st of 2010, because
13 at that point in time 200,000 Class 4 through Class 8
14 diesel trucks are going to be taken off the highway by the
15 proposed Private Fleet Rule. Two hundred thousand trucks
16 are going to then need to be upgraded to 2007. It will
17 never happen. There's not enough money in the State of
18 California to do that.
19 Just that number -- 90,000 of those 200,000
20 trucks are Class 8. To upgrade 90,000 trucks to 2007
21 minimum would cost $20 billion.
22 In my fleet alone, come 2012, according to the
23 Private Fleet Rule, I'm going to have to replace 16 trucks
24 - $1.8 million.
25 The people that I haul for don't care really
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 about air quality. Their job is to build things and to
2 ship them. They're competing all over the planet.
3 Anybody outside of the State of California could not care
4 less about the state of the air quality in California.
5 Everybody -- in 1980 we deregulated the industry.
6 Everybody since 1980 has been -- I can't think of the
7 word -- has benefited from the fact that freight rates are
8 low. I have a handout here that I would like to get to
9 you at some point that will clarify some of this stuff.
10 But now all of a sudden we're going to say, "Well, we just
11 want you to raise your freight rates by" -- it would cost
12 twice as much freight rates in order for me to buy new
13 trucks.
14 In 2012 -- our payments are usually in the
15 neighborhood of -- yearly truck payments are usually in
16 the neighborhood of about $250,000. Some years they're
17 up, some down, depending on what falls off and what we
18 buy. In 2012, my payments will be eight hundred plus
19 thousand dollars a year. Can't do that. My customers,
20 everybody in this room are not willing to pay that cost.
21 Bottom line.
22 We want clean air. I'm asthmatic. I know what
23 it is not to be able to breathe. And when you can't
24 breathe, nothing on this planet is of importance. But
25 when I saw the Private Fleet Rule -- the proposed Private
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 Fleet Rule, I started to get an anxiety attack over that.
2 So I would just like to say that the economic
3 impact of this is going to be huge and we need to pay
4 particular attention to it, because if we don't the
5 economy of the State of California will suffer severely.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. And please
8 don't have an anxiety attack. We'll get through this, I
9 promise you.
10 Mark Keppler.
11 MR. KEPPLER: Good morning. My name is Mark
12 Keppler. I'm the Executive Director of the Ken Maddy
13 Institute of Public Affairs at California State
14 University, Fresno, and the staff consultant for the Air
15 Quality Work Group of the California Partnership for the
16 San Joaquin Valley.
17 The Air Quality Work Group has had participation
18 from over 300 Valley stakeholders representing a broad
19 spectrum of Valley interests, including agriculture,
20 industry, environmental advocacy groups, and academia.
21 Since the partnership was officially launched in
22 September of 2005, we've been working hard to find the
23 fastest way possible to clean the air in the San Joaquin
24 Valley. The 8-hour ozone plan submitted by the San
25 Joaquin Valley Air District in April of this year
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 contained 29 recommendations by our work group.
2 We've been very pleased with the Air District's
3 receptiveness to our recommendations and especially
4 pleased that they've accepted our proposal to form a
5 dual-path task force to pursue options to accelerate
6 attainment that are not currently SIP creditable. The
7 District put this task force in place and called it a fast
8 track task force. And I am pleased to be serving on that
9 task force.
10 We were also very pleased when the Air
11 District -- I'm sorry -- Air Resources Board took similar
12 action to put in place a dual-path task force. I want to
13 thank Board members DeDe D'Adamo and Judy Case and the ARB
14 staff for their dedicated efforts to work with the San
15 Joaquin Valley Air District and stakeholders from
16 throughout the Valley to see what we can do to accelerate
17 attainment.
18 The results of our work together over the last
19 six months have been most encouraging. The attainment gap
20 originally identified in the District's ozone plan has
21 been significantly reduced. The attainment gap of 127
22 tons per day in 2017 has been reduced to 49 tons. An
23 attainment gap of 99 tons in 2020 has been reduced to 33
24 tons. It is important to understand that this reduction
25 in the attainment gap stems primarily from better
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 estimation of emission inventories and of the impact of
2 existing rules on certain area sources rather than from
3 newly discovered sources of emission reductions, but is
4 nonetheless good news.
5 While the Air Quality Work Group has collectively
6 been unable to identity SIP creditable emission reductions
7 that would enable us to avoid the need for a black box,
8 the reduction in the attainment gap increases our
9 confidence that future reductions will enable us to shave
10 several years, perhaps five to seven years, off the
11 official attainment date of 2024. For this to happen,
12 however, it will require new technologies and a massive
13 infusion of funds for incentive programs, particularly to
14 accelerate conversion of our legacy fleet of trucks and
15 agricultural equipment.
16 You have the commitment of the Air Quality Work
17 Group that we will press on until we get the job done. In
18 turn, we ask the ARB for a commitment to continue to work
19 with the partnership in the Valley to identity and certify
20 new technologies and help us procure the incentive funding
21 we so badly need if we are to achieve our early attainment
22 goals.
23 Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
25 We have five more witnesses to hear from, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 we're going to have some pretty extensive discussion. And
2 I think that this is probably a good time to take a break.
3 We will be back here at 1:00 to resume this item.
4 And looking forward to some further discussion, and hope
5 that people will be able to stay.
6 I invite anybody who wants to to come to Training
7 Room 2 and bring your lunch and we'll learn something
8 about the green innovations index.
9 Thanks.
10 (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.)
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: To continue where we left
12 off, we're still hearing testimony on the staff report.
13 And our next witness was Sean Edgar, followed by
14 Peter Weber and Sara Jackson.
15 MR. EDGAR: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Board
16 members. Sean Edgar, the Executive Director of the Clean
17 Fleets Coalition. Sorry I missed the green lunch. But I
18 hope it was salad and enjoyable. But I also want to talk
19 a little bit about green on two elements of this plan.
20 First off I'll credit your staff and Air District
21 staff and all the other stakeholders for participating in
22 what was a very meaningful process over the last several
23 months.
24 Our organization is comprised of transporters in
25 all eight counties of the Valley Air District. And there
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 are two aspects of the plan that I'll speak to. One is
2 stationary sources. The other is our favorite topic,
3 mobile source.
4 On the stationary source rule, to answer a
5 question that Ms. Bautista had before lunch, the issue of
6 composting is a critical piece in San Joaquin, and I look
7 forward to working with the Air District. Several of our
8 companies are also engaged in composting in the Valley.
9 And just as a reminder, as this Board moves
10 toward zero emissions, also in this very chamber your
11 sister board, the Integrated Waste Management Board, is
12 moving toward zero waste. And part of our zero waste is
13 to take that green waste and to take it into facilities
14 and compost it and turn it into something that's more
15 valuable than just putting it in a landfill. And part of
16 that integrated look at how we do that, there are
17 obviously some greenhouse gas implications with that. But
18 just as a prelude to getting involved with San Joaquin on
19 their rule, part of the reason you'll find a greater flow
20 of green waste from outside the Valley coming in to the
21 Valley is because AQMD in the period of 2002 to 2004 had
22 their own local rule dealing with composting and it was
23 pretty aggressive and it squeezed a lot of the tons that
24 would have been processed within the L.A. basin to come up
25 over the grapevine and they end up in the Valley.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 So zero waste, integrated waste management are
2 part of our roles and we look forward to working with the
3 Air District on that particular stationary source role.
4 But moving to mobile sources, I'll just highlight
5 and repeat just a few sentences from my September 27th
6 testimony when I was able to appear before you in Diamond
7 Bar. And relative to mobile sources, I think that the
8 silver bullet for San Joaquin Valley really has to do
9 with -- I should say more of a platinum bullet because I
10 think a lot of it just comes back to great technology
11 that's emerging. But how to get people into that
12 technology is really going to be the key item. And so
13 what I'll speak to is specifically my recommendation on
14 September 27th. The Prop 1B bond allocation really needs
15 to be targeted and supersized, as the present 250 million
16 bond allocation is not nearly enough to subsidize the
17 accelerated schedule for the on-road segments that your
18 staff has indicated need a subsidy to become reality.
19 And that the proposed schedule, by rapidly
20 compressing it, it's being so compressed that, if I
21 understand how this new overlay works, that the SIP that
22 you adopted on September 27th, what was a ten-year fleet
23 plan is now moving toward a seven-year fleet turnover
24 plan, with an opportunity to go to four years. And if as
25 a matter of policy you choose to do that, hopefully the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 technology will evolve to make that truck turnover happen.
2 However, we know it's going to be extremely costly and we
3 know it's not going to happen just by pass-through on
4 rates alone.
5 So to conclude, industry does not always get off
6 on the cheap and industry can take a carrot and run with
7 it. And the members of the Board that have been on the
8 Board for some time probably are tired of hearing me talk
9 about the solid waste collection vehicle rule, but I'm
10 just going to mention a few factoids there.
11 The first factoid is, Executive Officer
12 Witherspoon reported to your Board last year that industry
13 exceeded your expectations. Why did we do that? Well, we
14 went from what was a 10 percent requirement and we made it
15 a 35 percent requirement. We doubled up on the use of
16 Level III systems. We bought more new engines than you
17 expected with additional NOx requirements that you didn't
18 put on the rule, but we were able to do that.
19 Strategically Moyer helped a very little, as
20 Moyer funds dry up as the mandate cut a little bit deeper.
21 But bottom line is the rates that we were able to
22 charge, in some cases we've been able to pass through some
23 of that cost but not all of the cost.
24 So going forward, I'll just make a pitch that as
25 we look toward translating what we know from 12,000 trash
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 trucks on to 500,000 plus Class 4 through 8 on-highway
2 vehicles, 78,000 of which apparently is the inventory
3 running up and down the Valley, as we do that we know
4 we're going to need to not only expand the knowledge base
5 within our own coalition from the industry side, but we
6 also know that the most costly program that's ever been
7 done in history is going to be coming along, and so we
8 want to certainly work with you through the process of a
9 goods movement emission reduction program to get the best
10 bang for the buck. But we know that the silver bullet
11 really needs to be a platinum bullet to get us where we
12 all want to be.
13 With that, I'll conclude my remarks. And I'll be
14 available for any questions you have.
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.
16 Pete Weber, followed by Sara Jackson and Manuel
17 Cunya.
18 MR. WEBER: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and
19 members of the Board. I'm Pete Weber. I serve on the
20 Board of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin
21 Valley, and I am the convener for the Air Quality Work
22 Group.
23 Being from the Valley, I'd like to use
24 agricultural analogies. And I'm going to paint a picture
25 where I think we are in the process of cleaning up our air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 by contrasting that to picking an orange tree.
2 The EPA of course requires that we pick the tree
3 clean. And where we are today is we've picked the tree
4 about halfway. We've picked the bottom half, the easy
5 half. We've got a very, very tough upper half to pick,
6 and we've been working very hard to try to achieve that
7 objective.
8 The dual path task force that your Board set up I
9 think has done a very able job under the leadership of
10 Board Members DeDe D'Adamo and Judy Case in leading an
11 effort to try to get us closer to attainment at the
12 earliest possible date.
13 I guess I have a somewhat different perspective
14 on the work of that group over the course of the last
15 six months. I think the work of the ARB staff has been
16 exemplary. I think it has been high integrity, very
17 comprehensive, and very thorough. And I want to express
18 my appreciation to Ms. Terry and Kurt Karperos and Jeff
19 and Robbie and the rest of the staff. I think you've done
20 a terrific job.
21 Unfortunately, one of the things that I certainly
22 have become persuaded of is that the last 10 percent of
23 the tree is going to be extraordinarily difficult to pick.
24 We have tried really, really hard to find ways of picking
25 that last 10 percent. And unfortunately, we haven't found
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 a way that is legally approvable to do that yet. And
2 that's why we have to go to, you know, the extreme
3 designation and to a 2024 attainment date. I don't know
4 if anybody was happy about that, but it's reality. I
5 think we need to move on. For one thing, we are pushing
6 the limits on -- time limits on transportation conformity
7 budgets.
8 And beyond that, as has already been pointed out
9 this morning, there are benefits to going to an extreme
10 designation. I mean for one thing, you know, Title 5
11 permitting requirements will increase significantly, which
12 means we'll have more businesses looking for permitting.
13 We'll have about 2500 more businesses that will have to be
14 using BACT than would otherwise be the case.
15 I want to tell you that I sit on the task force
16 at the district level, the fast track task force. And
17 nobody, nobody is throwing in the towel. I mean that's
18 just -- that's not happening, it's not going to happen.
19 As compared to the ARB task force that was set up with a
20 duration of I believe six months, the district task force
21 actually -- its sunset is when we achieve attainment. We
22 are there for the duration. And I want to assure you that
23 we are going to continue to pursue any and all ways to
24 accelerate attainment.
25 We will need significant help from you all, given
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 that 85 percent of the NOx emissions in the Valley -- more
2 than 85 percent come from mobile sources. You're aware of
3 the fact, I'm sure, that we have the most challenging
4 goods movement environment in California. Forty-five
5 percent of all the NOx emissions in the four major trade
6 corridors come from -- are in the Valley. Forty-six
7 percent of the NOx and 43 percent of the PM2.5 associated
8 with goods movement occur in the Valley. So we need your
9 help.
10 Those numbers, by the way, are all significantly
11 higher than in other goods movement corridor in the State
12 of California, including the South Coast.
13 I have five specific recommendations to offer
14 you. First, we need ARB to speed up the certification of
15 technologies that will enable us to accelerate the
16 modernization of our mobile fleets.
17 Second -- and, by the way, I acknowledge that
18 Kurt Karperos in his presentation had the same
19 recommendation.
20 Second, we need ARB's help to secure major new
21 sources of incentive funding to convert our legacy fleet
22 of vehicles, particularly trucks, tractors, and gross
23 polluting automobiles. Financial incentives are the
24 ladders we need to pick the very top of the tree. And,
25 you know, we've been told to expect about $350 million
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 from Proposition 1B air quality mitigation funding. That
2 will help a great deal, but it is not nearly enough. And
3 so we need all the help we can get from you.
4 The third recommendation is -- because mobile
5 sources are such a dominant component of the problem in
6 the Valley, we need ARB representation on the Air District
7 Fast Track Task Force. And I would encourage you to
8 consider appointing somebody to represent the ARB staff at
9 those meetings.
10 Fourth, as a means of holding all of us
11 accountable for progress towards accelerated attainment, I
12 recommend that the ARB staff provide to your Board a
13 formal annual update of the work of the District Fast
14 Track Task Force. We want to reach accelerated
15 attainment. We believe that it is possible to do it in
16 2017. May not be SIP creditable today, but we think we
17 can get there.
18 And, finally, attainment is not enough. Given
19 the huge projected growth of the valley, sustained
20 attainment will be a major challenge. And we would
21 appreciate all the support that we can get from the Air
22 Resources Board to advance air-friendly land-use planning,
23 to look at alternative modes of transportation for both
24 people and goods. Earlier short-sea shipping was
25 mentioned. High-speed rail. Those are all huge issues
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 for the Valley.
2 And, finally, we also need to maximize the
3 development of clean fuel and clean energy alternatives.
4 Let me conclude by thanking the Board and
5 thanking the staff for their great work.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks a lot.
7 Manuel Cunya and then Paul Martin.
8 I thought we had heard -- oh, I'm sorry. I
9 missed Sara. I apologize.
10 Excuse me. Sara was right after Pete. I
11 apologize.
12 Thank you.
13 Something about that number 17 just -- okay.
14 MS. JACKSON: Good afternoon. My name is Sara
15 Jackson. I'm a research associate with Earth Justice in
16 Oakland.
17 And I want to quickly, before I say what I wanted
18 to say, is just to answer Mr. Weber's comments. And I
19 think somebody said earlier about NSR. I feel like maybe
20 too much is being made of how significant that will be,
21 because largely that is sort of a paperwork issue with all
22 these new permits coming on line. But in addition to
23 that, the way the rule is currently written, those new
24 thresholds that are going to suddenly take in so many more
25 sources won't ever come into effect unless and until EPA
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 approves a plan. And we know that the last plan still
2 haven't been approved. So we're not sure we'll see that
3 ever.
4 But moving on to my even more wonky testimony, is
5 that I'm concerned and I think a lot of people are
6 concerned that this plan continues to rely unnecessarily
7 on the black box in what amounts to an about-face for this
8 Board. While the black box does provide flexibility to
9 areas that can't identify what technology will get them to
10 attainment in the future, it doesn't provide a broad
11 excuse for putting off the adoption of available near-term
12 controls just because they're difficult or unpopular.
13 The California air Resources Board has always
14 been the leader when it comes to finding or creating
15 solutions to our pollution problems. Yet with the
16 adoption of this plan you will be abandoning that legacy.
17 Your decision on this plan is about promoting the
18 best policy for forcing technological solutions and
19 creating a market that will ensure development and
20 availability of those technologies. CARB has in the past
21 taken the lead in setting stringent standards with hard
22 and fast deadlines in order to push innovation and create
23 the right market signals for development.
24 The black box portion of this plan sends the
25 exact opposite message. It says, "No one needs to do
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 anything right now. We'll wait and see what happens
2 first."
3 In this disappointing change of course, this
4 usually bold agency seems now to be hiding behind the
5 black box provision in order to avoid commitments to
6 future achievement.
7 We heard earlier that the technology does exist
8 to get us there. These innovations need this Board's help
9 in order to encourage their widespread use and
10 availability. The barrier to early attainment in the San
11 Joaquin Valley is not a lack of feasible technological
12 controls but a lack of that former boldness we have come
13 to rely on from CARB.
14 We do not except the only way to achieve clean
15 air in the Valley is to pin our hopes on unenforceable
16 black-box promises that one day a solution may emerge. We
17 do not accept the Agency's legally untenable plan to put
18 these available technological solutions in this black box
19 based on claims that development is needed to reduce the
20 cost of that technology.
21 Valley residents have worked tirelessly to help
22 the Board and the local air district to find a way to get
23 to clean air before 2024. They need this Board to do its
24 part and force technological development rather than rely
25 on the passive black box strategy used in this plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 Please use your authority to amend the SIP to
2 eliminate that black box.
3 Thanks.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
5 Now for Manuel Cunya and then Paul Martin.
6 MR. CUNYA: Thank you very much.
7 I was coming up here this morning and I kept
8 hearing rain. So when I was getting here, I was going to
9 have us all take a moment of silence and pray for the rain
10 to go south. But apparently you don't have the rain here
11 either, so we can't take a moment of silence to ship it to
12 the San Joaquin Valley.
13 But, again, thank you very much for allowing me
14 to be here today.
15 First is I'd like to acknowledge this Board along
16 with the San Joaquin Valley Board in their wisdom of
17 looking ahead by forming two fast track task force. The
18 San Joaquin Valley did its fast track task force back in
19 May, adopting its plan. And then ARB in its June, with
20 DeDe and with Judy Case as the Board members, along with
21 Lynn Terry, Kurt, and many other staff have diligently
22 worked very, very hard and many countless hours, and have
23 taken some -- I think in some cases some pretty verbal
24 abuses in some of the meetings. That is not I think
25 appropriate in any type of meeting. We can disagree, but
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 in some places it was pretty bad.
2 I would hope that the Board today moves forward
3 with the staff's recommendation. Our plan is like any
4 other plan. It will continually be changed throughout the
5 life of that plan with the life of the San Joaquin Valley,
6 just like any other air district. As EPA comes out with a
7 new health-based standard, that plan's going to change.
8 We do a 2.5 this coming year. That's going to change.
9 So the plan continually changes as San Joaquin
10 Valley Air Board works very hard and diligently with your
11 staff. Your staff reviews every rule that we do and has
12 input. And sometimes we really don't -- we disagree
13 tremendously, but at the end we have to move forward, and
14 that's what we're doing.
15 But I want to make a comment. Agriculture is
16 doing everything it can to clean up the air and be
17 responsible to our families, to our communities, to our
18 farm workers, for the consumers. We have the most safest
19 food in the world here in the San Joaquin Valley. We got
20 to make sure that we do not destroy businesses of any
21 type, including the transportation side, the stores, the
22 small family businesses in the rural communities, et
23 cetera; but continually working together and in trying to
24 achieve those, that's going to be the important part.
25 Technology in my industry called agriculture is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 not like a truck. Farm tractors you just don't go put an
2 SCR device on a tractor. There are many other things that
3 farm tractors are not designed like cars or trucks at all.
4 And farm tractors last a long time. I have a 90-year-old
5 farmer, Japanese American, out of Kingsburg, California,
6 with his wife -- 90 years old -- appeared in the Fresno
7 Bee back in August, also appeared in the Chicago and New
8 York Times still farming and driving his own tractor.
9 It's a 135 Fergy, a 1968 tractor. That tractor, I saw it,
10 it looks cleaner than most of probably your cars today
11 that people take care of, or their garages -- what
12 people's garages looks like. But he still farms with that
13 tractor, and it's 20 acres, him and his wife. He does
14 most of all the work except for harvest.
15 So when we get to that stage of the line, we need
16 to make sure we work with you, and we will work with you,
17 to deal with farm machinery that makes sense for this
18 Valley, for California agriculture, as well as for the
19 transportation side.
20 But, again, I want to thank you. The funding is
21 crucial across the entire sector for all businesses. We
22 have to work hard. And I'm hoping that we can work with
23 Senator Perata moving forward in 2008 to develop a
24 statewide DMV fee increase for all air districts to help
25 fund equipment of all types. And I believe Mr. Perata
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 will look forward in introducing that bill, I would hope,
2 in the coming months to deal with a statewide DMV fee to
3 deal with more trucks, in our vehicles, or whatever they
4 are. But we do need that other step of funding. Right
5 now I think in the San Joaquin Valley we're at $7 for DMV
6 fees. But we need to raise that tremendously across the
7 board for all people to participate.
8 Again, thank you very much, Madam Chair, the
9 Board and the staff. But, Lynn, thank you very much for
10 putting up with some of us at the meetings and for some of
11 us having to bite our fingernails. And we appreciate all
12 the work that you and the staff have done to deal with
13 this for six months. And we look forward to this going
14 forward and moving on to more important issues as well, as
15 this is very important. But we need to keep moving
16 forward and not keep fighting backwards.
17 Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
19 Paul Martin, and then we'll hear from Seyed
20 Sadredin.
21 MR. MARTIN: Madam Chairman, members of the
22 Board. I'm Paul Martin, Director of Environmental
23 Services for Western United Dairymen. We're headquartered
24 in Modesto.
25 And I want to thank the Board for the opportunity
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 to participate in this task force process. It was a very
2 educational process for me and I think we covered a lot of
3 ground.
4 I did attend every one of the community meetings
5 that was held. And I want to relate to you that Ms.
6 D'Adamo and Ms. Case should be strongly commended for the
7 job that they did in conducting those task force meetings.
8 Everyone was not only allowed to talk, but sincerely
9 encouraged to talk. And those that had a little bit of
10 apprehension about appearing before a microphone were
11 contacted by staff and by Board members so that they could
12 have a personal conversation. So you folks did a superb
13 job and it's appreciated by everyone.
14 I also want to mention that this really was a
15 significant and detailed process. And staff did an
16 outstanding job of listening to the ideas that were
17 presented and thoroughly researching them and evaluating
18 them and including them in the staff report where that was
19 indicated. And this work resulted in a substantial
20 reduction in the -- substantial accelerated reductions
21 that we need to reach attainment earlier in this process.
22 As we move forward from this point, I don't see
23 either ARB or the District throwing in the towel or waving
24 a white flag of surrender. I'm confident in my own mind
25 that work will continue using the existing authorities and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 processes both of the Air Resources Board and the San
2 Joaquin Valley Air District.
3 So I suggest that the SIP be forwarded and that
4 we get on with the job.
5 Thanks very much.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
7 Okay. The last word -- well, not really the last
8 word -- last speaker.
9 MR. SADREDIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members
10 of the Board.
11 First of all, I'd like to express our gratitude
12 to Board Members Case and D'Adamo for their hard work and
13 leadership on the task force and the great work that they
14 did for us.
15 We really in the Valley appreciate the
16 unprecedented level of attention that your Board is paying
17 to the district. And we're hoping that this is not the
18 end of it. We want this to continue. We welcome it. We
19 want you to be involved. We like you to participate in
20 our task force.
21 And your Board soon will be making a lot of
22 important decisions that will have major impacts on our
23 cleanup efforts. And we really want you to stay engaged
24 and really do what the Valley needs to do.
25 I'd be happy to answer any questions you have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 regarding comments and questions that have been made. But
2 I want to limit my comments to future -- what's ahead of
3 us and how we can go about actually achieving accelerated
4 attainment in San Joaquin Valley. That is really what the
5 dual path is all about. You know, there is no white flag,
6 there is no surrender.
7 In the legal context, we have a plan that does
8 not have all the tools that are legally enforceable that
9 EPA would accept to show attainment sooner. But we are
10 committed to achieving attainment by 2017. I've promised
11 my friends in the environmental community that I will do
12 everything possible to get it done, and I'm confident that
13 we can do it. But we need some time and we need to let a
14 lot of new initiatives to be really evolved into a
15 SIP-ready status.
16 And what I wanted to share with you is what our
17 hope and expectations are from your Board in the coming
18 months. And to set the stage for that I think it's
19 helpful to remind the Board of the very unique and
20 difficult challenges that the Valley faces that are
21 unprecedented and are unmatched by any other area in
22 California. And if I could, just give you a quick
23 comparison to keep in mind as we come before you in the
24 coming year with requests for funding, as your Board will
25 have total authority on disbursing those funds, it is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 important to really take into account the Valley's unique
2 circumstances.
3 You heard your staff's report today. Excellent
4 job, by the way. And thank you, staff, for good work. It
5 shows basically that the San Joaquin Valley has one of the
6 strongest, if not the strongest, air quality management
7 programs in the state. Now, when you hear that, the
8 logical question would be, "Well, then why is it that the
9 Valley's air quality is so severe and we still have a lot
10 of work ahead of us?" The answer, as you know, lies in
11 the difficult geography, topography, and meteorology that
12 the Valley really has to deal with. We have a bowl with a
13 lid on top of it most of the time all year. And a lot
14 of -- a small amount of air pollution in the Valley can
15 cause a great deal of damage compared to other areas in
16 California. For instance, let me just give you a
17 comparison with Bay Area and Los Angeles.
18 If you look at pollution density, how much
19 pollution is released into the atmosphere per square
20 mile -- and that's really a standard or a parameter that
21 the air quality modelers use in, you know, deciding where
22 an area stands with respect to air quality needs and
23 progress.
24 I see my red light's coming up. I'll try to
25 speed it up.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
2 MR. SADREDIN: If you look at pollution density
3 in Bay Area, it is six times higher than San Joaquin
4 Valley. The mobile sources and stationary sources in Bay
5 Area produce six times more pollution per square mile than
6 San Joaquin Valley does. But fortunately for them because
7 of the nice ocean breeze and the good mixing that they
8 have, their air is virtually clean when it comes to the
9 ozone standard.
10 If you on the other hand look at South Coast,
11 their pollution density is ten times higher than San
12 Joaquin Valley. But their air quality, as you know, is
13 only marginally worse than ours. You know, last year they
14 had 70-some days of exceeding the 8-hour standard. In the
15 Valley we had 63 or so.
16 So we want you to keep that in mind next year as
17 we come before you for the initial disbursal of the $250
18 million in Prop 1B funding and later on with the remainder
19 of that $1 billion. Under AB 118 your Board has the
20 decision to make on disbursal for about $80 million a
21 year. You also have total control over the statewide
22 disbursal of the statewide Moyer funds. Without your
23 help, the SOON reductions that we talked about will not
24 happen in San Joaquin Valley. If your Board does not come
25 through with matching -- or efforts on the construction
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 piece, we will not get any reduction.
2 So we really want you to take that all into
3 account, knowing that no other region in the state faces
4 the level of difficulty that we face. And we hope and
5 expect from your Board to get our fair share when it comes
6 to those resources.
7 I'd be happy to answer any questions, or if you
8 have any advice or recommendations for me to definitely
9 follow up on.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I'd appreciate if you just
11 stand by in case we do. But I don't think at the moment
12 we have any questions. Thank you.
13 Did staff have any wrap-up remarks that you
14 wanted to make at this point or -- yes, you do.
15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Maybe just one
16 quick clarification, which has to do with the technology
17 issue. And I just wanted to be clear that our engineering
18 staff's review of the rules from the standpoint of the
19 cleanest technology available found that the district,
20 their rules recently adopted and their proposed rules will
21 apply to cleanest technology that meets technical
22 feasibility and cost effectiveness. And that was why we
23 did not find new quantifiable reductions and, hence, the
24 range of 0 to 2 as what might be found going forward over
25 time. But the technology standard has been met from the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 standpoint of our engineering staff.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
3 This is one of those times when I think it's very
4 fortunate that we have the mix of Board members that we
5 do, because we have a number of members who have
6 experience serving on district boards and bring some of
7 the experience and wisdom from their respective boards, as
8 well as those of us who are here because of some type of
9 technical background or area of expertise. And so I think
10 each of us probably brings a slightly different
11 perspective to the situation that we're in right now.
12 But I want to just take advantage of having the
13 Chair to make a couple of general remarks before we get
14 into a further discussion about where we're going from
15 here.
16 First of all, I have to say that I am really
17 heartened and delighted by the turnout and the amount of
18 pressure that we are getting from citizen groups of all
19 kinds in the Valley. It is such a change from what things
20 were like only a few years ago. And it represents I think
21 hope for the future that we will be able to get to where
22 we need to go. Because I believe the reality is that no
23 matter how competent the agencies, no matter how sincere
24 the leaders of the agencies are, it's only continued
25 public interest and pressure that actually guarantees the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 results in a democratic society. So I think it's
2 important to take note of that.
3 And to say that also from my perspective, you
4 know, if everything was perfect, I wouldn't have felt as
5 strongly as I did about the Governor's decision to support
6 the bill that passed this year to expand the Board of the
7 San Joaquin Valley District. Because I think it's clear
8 that in response to the kind of concerns that have been
9 shown and the reality of the overwhelming problem, having
10 a Board that has a broader representation from the health
11 community and from people who live in urban areas is an
12 important improvement.
13 And so part of my thinking about where we are
14 today is based on the fact that we do have that change in
15 the works and that that's something that we need to honor
16 and give some credence to and give some support to.
17 Secondly, I think it's important to remember --
18 and, again, I wasn't here when the original discussion
19 about the SIP was held, though I did have a chance to
20 review the transcript of that as well -- that in the Clean
21 Air Act world, which has somewhat arbitrary
22 categorizations and deadlines in it that don't necessarily
23 reflect the reality of what it takes to actually achieve
24 clean air, you know, what actually happened was that the
25 Board made a decision to say that the air quality in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 San Joaquin Valley is extreme as opposed to severe. And
2 in terms of the level of pollution that they face and the
3 difficulty of the task, I don't think it's -- you really
4 can't argue very well with that finding.
5 The problem of course is that going along with
6 that change in categorization comes an extension of time
7 to meet the standards. And if that meant, you know, an
8 extension of effort or a, you know, dwindling out of the
9 effort, that would indeed be a big problem. But as I
10 understand it -- and others can speak more to what this
11 actually meant in the context of San Joaquin Valley --
12 there are a number of rules that have more stringent
13 requirements in them and, you know, tighter triggers and
14 so forth as a result of this extension taking place than
15 would happen if we were to somehow go back and undue that.
16 So to me it's a little bit like the decision that we were
17 looking at earlier around the harbor craft where something
18 that looks like it's going to get you benefits in the
19 short run may actually turn out not to get you the
20 benefits that you need overall to get to goal.
21 I guess the other thing that I'd like to say just
22 in general, because there was a lot of comment about this,
23 you know, the Board's role in all of this, you know, our
24 isn't to either micromanage or to just give pats on the
25 back to air districts. We do have a separate and distinct
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 role. It's a unique kind of a partnership. There's
2 always going to be some level of tension involved in it
3 because, as you could hear in the dynamic today, everybody
4 wants us to do -- to be as aggressive as we can, you know,
5 in the areas that the Air Resources Board has direct
6 control over. And sometimes -- you know, from the
7 industry's perspective it's easier to point fingers at the
8 mobile sources and vice versa. And the truth is of course
9 we'd need to get all of them cleaned up as far and as fast
10 as we can.
11 I think the ARB's history and tradition has been
12 one of trying to use its authority and its ability to push
13 technologies and to set high standards in ways that also
14 were realistic and reflected a consideration of economics
15 and not only of health. And I guess the classic example
16 actually came from my old friend Bob Sawyer back when we
17 both served on the Air Resources Board in the late '70s
18 when he pointed out that if we were only considering
19 public health and not looking at practicality, we would
20 have just banned the internal combustion engine right then
21 and just gotten on with it, you know. And from a
22 technical perspective that, you know, was feasible
23 actually even then. I mean there were ways you could have
24 gotten around it. But in reality we would have had a very
25 different state than we do today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 So I do think that there's always going to be
2 some weighing that the Board has to do of what actually
3 can be achieved with technology on what kind of a time
4 frame.
5 Having said all of that, however, I have felt all
6 along that many of the measures that were being proposed
7 by citizen groups to push technology further and faster
8 even than it's being pushed today were not unreasonable
9 requests for them to be making, that the idea of looking
10 at innovative kinds of technologies and new kinds of
11 controls that are more stringent even than have been
12 considered in the South Coast is not an unreasonable thing
13 to ask of this area, given the amount of growth and given
14 the severity of the air problem.
15 So I guess, you know, where I come down on all of
16 this is that I don't want to see us just washing our hands
17 of this situation; at the same time, I also don't really
18 see that, you know, a perpetual life in which ARB is
19 running a separate discussion group is really going to be
20 the way to get to where we need to go.
21 So I know that Board members D'Adamo and Case
22 have some thoughts about, you know, the process here and
23 what to do next. But, you know, I just want to say that
24 in terms of maybe setting some context for all of this
25 that, you know, I'm not satisfied with where we are today,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 I'm not willing to say this is the best we can do. I'm
2 looking for a way in which we can send the message that we
3 are going to continue to push for the strongest possible
4 regulations and to review that; and where it is necessary
5 and useful, if we have to, you know, to take a stronger
6 hand. But at the same time I see progress that is being
7 made and a lot of hope there as well, and I don't want to
8 do anything to get in the way of it.
9 So I'm going to turn to the Board member who
10 chaired this committee and ask you if you'd like to
11 perhaps give us some wisdom and guidance at this point.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, thank you. And I
13 really appreciate your comments. I think that you really
14 described sort of the challenge ahead. And from my
15 perspective, we're sort of walking a fine line here. On
16 the one hand we made I think tremendous progress. And
17 in -- I don't want to just take the credit here with ARB.
18 Everyone came together and coalesced in these task force
19 meetings, and we were able to really roll up our sleeves
20 and get to work. So that sort of begs the question, why
21 not continue those conversations? Why not continue it for
22 another six months and may be we'd be able to close the
23 gap?
24 What I'd like to do is have staff pull up slide
25 14 from its presentation to just kind of put this in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 context with the comments that I'll be making here.
2 The question is, how big is 49 tons per day? And
3 that's the gap that we're talking about. I would be more
4 than willing to step up the involvement of -- you know,
5 keep the task force going and meet not just five more
6 times but ten more times if I saw that there was a way
7 that we could close this gap. But if you look at the
8 comparison to other rules, 49 tons per day, that would be
9 almost like somehow finding another strengthened truck
10 measure. That's the amount that we're talking about here.
11 And I think Pete Weber's analogy of the last ten
12 percent way at the top of the tree is a good one. The
13 reason that we're relying on future technologies is
14 because we really and truly do need them. The reason that
15 we're relying on incentive dollars is because we
16 absolutely need to rely on them. But we don't get credit
17 for them in this process.
18 So it's an unfortunate situation. But I really
19 think that to be fair and honest about the situation, we
20 need to make the assessment that we cannot close this gap
21 if we give it another couple more months. So I think that
22 the most responsible thing to do is to say that the
23 legally enforceable plan is the one that we have, to
24 advance it.
25 But I agree with you, Madam Chair, that we need
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 to somehow keep the pressure on. And I think that the
2 best way for us to keep the pressure on is to participate
3 in the local, district task force meetings, at some point
4 to pull together again our task force, not with the idea
5 of micromanaging the district, but just as another
6 pressure point, another milestone in the process. And
7 then to bring this -- bring an update back to the Board in
8 a year or maybe twice a year, whatever -- I would defer to
9 staff on that issue. In other words, again, not to
10 micromanage but to keep the pressure on. And hopefully
11 we'll be able to find, as Nidia from the Coalition for
12 Clean Air indicated, more, you know, pennies -- pennies,
13 dimes, and quarters along the way.
14 I do think it's important also to note that
15 Senator Machado fought long and hard for the bill to add
16 additional representation to the local air district
17 governing board. And I think we need to respect that
18 process. I supported that bill as well. The Governor
19 signed it. And I think we need to allow that process to
20 continue and to allow those new board members an
21 opportunity to engage and -- I'm hoping that maybe some of
22 them or even the current board members would like to
23 participate in a more involved way with the local district
24 task force. So, again, I think we need to respect that,
25 the role of the new board, and work together, as you say,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 in a partnership. And that that hopefully will move us
2 forward and this won't be the last word.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
4 Supervisor Hill.
5 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 And I also want to offer my thanks to Judy and
7 Dede for the extraordinary work and the time commitment,
8 as well as staff's, in that.
9 You know, I'm looking at some of the information
10 that the community provided as suggestions to CARB Air
11 Quality Task Force for next steps. And in there are those
12 ISSRC recommendations. And I know in the presentation we
13 were looking at -- this is just to kind of clarify it in
14 my own mind -- and I guess for clarity, that we're looking
15 at -- you know, they've suggested a potential of 40 to 46
16 tons of reductions from these potential additional SIP
17 control measures. And the staff presentation talked about
18 zero to two tons is what the estimate would be.
19 Was that based on using -- I guess on Slide 11
20 when we were talking about the control technologies and
21 the quantification of additional incremental benefits --
22 those questions that I know the Chair asked as well: Can
23 it be installed, are the operating conditions the right
24 ones, and will it interfere with existing controls? -- was
25 that analysis done on these to determine that, or is it --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 I guess there is no "is it". How did we -- is this part
2 of --
3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I can kick this
4 off, and then our Stationary Source staff are here as
5 well.
6 And Kurt walked through the list from the ISSRC
7 report and, as you recall -- most of those things are
8 underway in some form or fashion, although they're not
9 quantifiable.
10 SUPERVISOR HILL: Well, we did -- that was back
11 in June too, I know we went through a lot of --
12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Yeah. And so
13 what remained really, I think the big question is: Are
14 there technologies like SCR that can be more widely
15 applied? And I'll ask Bob Fletcher to respond to that
16 more directly.
17 But those are the decisions that are made in the
18 development of SIP measures and rules. And so sector by
19 sector there's an assessment, like our staff do for mobile
20 source measures: What is the technology that's most
21 aggressive, that's technically feasible, and cost
22 effectiveness? And that becomes the basis for the rule
23 proposal -- or the SIP measure. And that was the analysis
24 that our staff did to say -- take a second set of eyes to
25 say, "Are those SIP measures and rules meeting that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 highest level of technically feasible and cost effective
2 technology?" The answer is "yes' today.
3 But our commitment is to work through the new
4 technology forum, through our SIP. As the SIP measures
5 come through rulemaking at district level, ARB staff are
6 committed to following that closely to make sure that if
7 there's new information, something changes, that we'll be
8 out there making those comments that indeed there is a new
9 technology that's now available.
10 So there's an ongoing mechanism. And we also are
11 recommending that we report back to the Board at least
12 annually on the Valley's air quality status, the SIP
13 implementation, which includes both the district's piece
14 and our piece as well.
15 Now, this slide here talks about -- if you apply
16 these rules across the Board and then you went back and
17 said at a particular source, "Could there have been an
18 additional level of control for a particular source," that
19 would be an assessment that would have to be done after a
20 rule is implemented and you'd look at it and say, "Could
21 you put another technology, layer it on top," which was
22 what was implied in the ISSRC report.
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: But I think the point here
24 is that -- and, again, this is kind of this fine line
25 issue here -- is that, you know, there's a difference
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 between saying the District hasn't done its job because
2 they didn't require these things and therefore, in effect,
3 we should assume their powers and take over for them
4 versus saying, "There's more that could be done here or at
5 least we think there's more that could be done here, and
6 you ought to keep looking for it." And that's kind of
7 where I'm trying to make sure that we go.
8 SUPERVISOR HILL: And we get to the same point --
9 yeah, because we get to the same point at doing that.
10 That's absolutely right. And I think that that's probably
11 the way that we should.
12 If we were to -- I guess at first when I came in
13 today I was kind of excited about continuing the task
14 force, seeing that there's some effort there that could be
15 put forth over the next six months or so, because
16 obviously the timing of the release of the report and that
17 the analysis could go forward on these and other things
18 and we could work with the District to try and include
19 that.
20 But I think, you know, after hearing the comments
21 that with the asserted effort of the District and with the
22 report back to the Board on a regular basis, you know,
23 every six months I think would be fine, because it -- you
24 know, the sad part is when I first started recognizing the
25 issues and the problems, there was a credibility problem.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 And it was a credibility between the community and a
2 confidence in what the District can do and their
3 abilities. And I think that we've worked through that and
4 I think the District has worked through that, and the
5 future should be able to indicate some very positive
6 results in that way.
7 So I think that moving forward this way is
8 probably the best way to get to that end result that we're
9 all looking for.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thanks.
11 Other comments here?
12 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Madam Chair, again I think
13 the process that was followed was very valuable. And
14 having everybody sit around a table instead of a dais
15 upfront and seating down below and a sense that we're not
16 all in a discussion but in a one-way conversation, I think
17 that was really beneficial. I think a number of
18 additional items were found.
19 One thing I don't think we've talked a lot about
20 from the Board members is having the San Joaquin Valley
21 revisit the cost effectiveness threshold at the San
22 Joaquin Valley, and I would certainly support that. And I
23 believe that the air pollution control officer is planning
24 to put that on an agenda.
25 We also had the SOON program for construction,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 looking for ways to accelerate the reduction in emissions
2 from construction equipment.
3 I think there's huge challenges, because in all
4 of this time we also are experiencing one of the fastest
5 growth areas as much as for any other reasons we have more
6 space. And that's not a good trend in terms of trying to
7 contain some of these others. I'd certainly lend my voice
8 to efforts to get C-MAC dollars to be more focused on some
9 public transportation issues, because I don't think that's
10 been done as well. But that's really not under the
11 authority of the Air Pollution Control District other than
12 in I believe an advocacy role, which I certainly would
13 like to pursue.
14 The District also, speaking as a San Joaquin
15 Valley District member, recognizes that there are several
16 areas that will not reach attainment as quickly as some
17 other areas. As our staff here at the ARB shared, 90
18 percent will be in attainment by 2018, but we also have a
19 couple of areas that aren't quite getting there based on
20 everything we can find. And I think we need to target
21 some of our mitigation specifically to those areas to try
22 and help them along first because they have the biggest
23 challenge.
24 And in everything I hear, we still need
25 mitigation dollars to help move us to that stage. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 heard from business and we put a personal story on the
2 cost of our new regulations, what it's going to do to some
3 companies. And we all need some help getting to that
4 point where we can insist our whole economic base to move
5 in a particular direction. I think part of that's
6 regulation, part of that is assisting to get to that point
7 also.
8 So I believe there is an element on time
9 constraints. We saw on Slide No. 18 and 19 dealt with the
10 conformity issue and how that window has been narrowed and
11 narrowed and narrowed, and it's getting to a point where
12 it will become severe.
13 But I think we're still in a process. What I
14 would like to see, particularly since there's some
15 overlaps between what was the ARB task force and what was
16 the fast track task force, is to ask that we have an ARB
17 representative serve on the fast track task force that's
18 through the San Joaquin Valley. I think it's been really
19 beneficial having ARB engaged with the San Joaquin Valley
20 putting all those thoughts together in one location. And
21 I've been a member of the San Joaquin Board for a long
22 time, and I don't think it's just because I'm currently
23 sitting on this Board also, but in my past participation I
24 didn't see ARB staff with the exception of having Robbie
25 give a short update on what was happening. And I think
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 this additional oversight and working together is very
2 beneficial.
3 So I would like to see a member of ARB staff
4 participating with the fast track as a way to keep it on
5 track, and all the technological wizards to be there at
6 the same table, because I believe there's a lot of synergy
7 in that.
8 So, you know, as we move forward, I think there
9 are a couple of things that were asked of us; I'm in total
10 agreement with that: To speed certification of technology
11 and look for any way to do that; to assist with acquiring
12 incentives, because that's part of helping our businesses
13 get there; to have an ARB staff member at the fast track
14 task force meetings.
15 And instead of an annual update, I'd really like
16 to see a report come back more in the time frame of March
17 or April, so that we continue to really focus. I agree
18 with those in the environmental community keeping up the
19 pressure. And I think if we extend that line any longer
20 than that, the sense is we're walking away from it. We're
21 not walking away from it. It's still going to continue to
22 be a very high level issue for all of us until we make
23 attainment. And even if we have all the rules in place
24 moving towards that, I think until we're actually there
25 and the monitors show it, we need to all keep our eye on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 the ball and move forward with that.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Other Board members want to
3 comment?
4 Anybody else? No?
5 All right.
6 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you very much.
7 I was the dissenting vote in June, and I believed
8 then and I still agree that enough is not being done. But
9 if you look at this in perspective of generations of
10 neglect relative to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley,
11 I think that we certainly have a better foundation today
12 than we had in June. And I think DeDe and Judy for -- and
13 CARB staff certainly for, you know, hours of commitment to
14 this issue in the local community.
15 I think it demonstrates clearly that we are not
16 throwing in the towel, that there's a lot of work to be
17 done. I was heartened by comments of District staff that
18 they are committed to doing more. And I'm really
19 comfortable that the new membership on the district level
20 will really push this.
21 But I do agree with other comments made by Board
22 members that the community in San Joaquin Valley needs to
23 keep the pressure on us and the District to go forward.
24 And I would hope that when the next report comes in, that
25 we actually do meet in the Valley so that it gives people
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 a better opportunity to be heard.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you for that.
3 I don't want to just leave this in the form of a
4 discussion, because I think a number of specific
5 suggestions and recommendations have been made. And
6 although we don't have a formal resolution in front of us
7 and this wasn't agendized, you know, there's not an action
8 to be taken, but I do think it would be appropriate for us
9 to communicate in a formal way the nature of the
10 discussion that we've had here and not just rely on
11 people's anecdotal impressions of what they heard. And I
12 have a couple of things that I'd like to kind of outline
13 here -- and other Board members may wish to throw
14 something in -- but just to kind of sum of some of these
15 point.
16 First of all, I was struck by how many people
17 indicated that even though it might not be a legally
18 binding deadline, that they still wanted to strive towards
19 the goal of attainment by 2017. And I think we should
20 encourage them to do that, and add our weight to that;
21 that we should continue, even with a black box and some
22 technology breakthroughs that we don't know yet, to say
23 that 2017 is still our idea of an appropriate goal to be
24 reaching for even though we aren't sure that we know how
25 to get there.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 Secondly, I think we should specifically endorse
2 and request that the Board consider the cost-effectiveness
3 threshold and the SOON requirement. Even though we know
4 they're doing it or they have indicated that they're doing
5 it, I don't see why it's inappropriate for us to support
6 that, and to take another look then at other kinds of
7 breakthrough technologies that might be out there.
8 I'd also like to mention that with respect to
9 land use and transportation funding, that -- well, let's
10 start with the land use first -- that, you know, in
11 addition to sending as many additional copies of the ARB
12 land-use guide book as anybody might like to have, that we
13 should urge the cities and the counties of the San Joaquin
14 Valley to go beyond where others have gone to
15 incorporating air quality considerations into their
16 planning decisions. And with respect to transportation
17 dollars, really to put everybody's money where our mouths
18 are. And not fund projects that are just okay or
19 mitigated, but actually insist on projects that have a net
20 air quality improvement to them. This isn't something
21 where we have any binding authority. But we're going to
22 be in the midst of this struggle with our colleagues at
23 the districts and we might as well, you know, send up a
24 flag now on that.
25 And then in terms of ARB committing to serve on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 the local district task force, assuming we're invited, I
2 think we definitely should do that formally; and then to
3 have a report back in a six-month time frame on how we're
4 doing, and to have that meeting somewhere in the Valley,
5 which I think we were planning to do at some point anyway.
6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, I just would
7 like to build on something though that Supervisor Case
8 mentioned, and maybe you could add to that list. And that
9 would be to encourage mitigation moneys to flow first to
10 those areas that are going to have the most difficulty
11 reaching air quality standards. And I think that --
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's a very interesting
13 point.
14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- that's a very fair
15 response. And I like that idea.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Let's add that to the list.
17 I see heads nodding in general. If nobody has
18 objections, if we could incorporate those into a
19 communication that we would send on behalf of the Board, I
20 would feel that we had done our duty as of today.
21 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Just two additional items.
22 One is that the ARB Board and staff continue to
23 advocate for additional mitigation monies. We heard how
24 oversubscribed the Carl Moyer program is. We really need
25 to be advocating for expanding that program for the many
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 needs that are out there. And maybe looking to staff in
2 terms of reporting back to us in participation with the
3 San Joaquin fast track timing of that. I wouldn't want to
4 wait a year. My consideration --
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Six months was --
6 BOARD MEMBER CASE: -- would be March or April
7 what would be appropriate in terms of getting back.
8 Certainly I wouldn't want to go beyond six months, and
9 maybe sooner's better. But I'm looking to you. You have
10 a lot of work on your plates.
11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That time frame
12 is fine with us, of course just whatever in terms of
13 scheduling Board meetings and locations. We would -- our
14 best guess is we will be in the Valley in June for the
15 PM2.5 SIP, or thereabouts. Now, if that schedule were to
16 accelerate, we might be able to combine them. Another
17 consideration. We should know in maybe a month or so.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Good.
19 Any further comments?
20 All right. If not, thank you for all of this
21 input. And we will be spending a lot more time and energy
22 on the San Joaquin Valley in months to come -- months and
23 years to come.
24 MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC: And I would like to take
25 this time just to hand out our jellyfish certificates to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 our recipients, to our representatives on the Board from
2 the Valley, to Ms. D'Adamo and to Ms. Case for failing to
3 come to represent the people that you represent here at
4 this table today with your decision and with your
5 comments. And I'll leave these with the clerk.
6 And also to staff Lynn Terry and Kurt for, as it
7 says here, "having no spine in ratifying the San Joaquin
8 Valley Air Pollution Control District's 2007 Ozone Plan.
9 You could have done so much more to protect the health of
10 the Valley citizens. We trusted you to do your job and
11 you failed."
12 So we'll leave these with you -- with the clerk
13 of the Board so you can take these home with you.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: We could not disagree with
15 you more strongly. And I'm sorry that you really failed
16 to understand what was being said here today. But we will
17 continue the conversation. Thank you.
18 And we'll move on.
19 Okay. We now have another item where we do
20 actually have to take some action, which is the
21 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast Air
22 Basin. So we'll have a slight switch of personnel.
23 And let's give ourselves a five-minute break.
24 Thanks.
25 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Conformity is next up.
2 This is a modified emissions budget to be used
3 for transportation conformity in the South Coast Air Basin
4 and the Coachella Valley. South Coast District has asked
5 us to approve this. And it follows up on our approval of
6 the AQMP as well as the state strategy for the 2007 SIP.
7 I don't know that we need much of a presentation
8 on this item. Do we have witnesses who've signed up to
9 speak on this?
10 No. Then we should just do it, I think.
11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: That's right.
12 The only thing that we're required to do is have a public
13 hearing. We don't need a staff presentation.
14 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: All right. I declare the
15 record open and closed at this time. I think we know the
16 issue, because we dealt with it in the context of the
17 measures.
18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, Madam Chairman, I'd
19 move the attached resolution for approval.
20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'll second.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Very good.
22 All in favor say aye.
23 (Ayes.)
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well done.
25 Moving along. We have a state plan to increase
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 the use of alternative transportation fuels in California.
2 This one will take a little more time. This is a
3 joint report that we worked on under legislation that was
4 passed by Assemblywoman Pavley, AB 1007.
5 The plan was prepared by the California Energy
6 Commission staff. And I know it's been reviewed by their
7 Commission. And our staff have also been in consultation
8 with them, along with other agencies, industry, and many
9 other stakeholders.
10 And I will now ask Mr. Goldstene to introduce
11 this item.
12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOLDSTENE: Thank you, Chairman
13 Nichols.
14 Assembly Bill 1007 directed the California Energy
15 Commission to work with the Air Resources Board and others
16 to develop a plan to increase the use of alternative
17 transportation fuels. AB 1007 specified the criteria the
18 staff must consider in developing the plan, including
19 environmental impacts based on a full fuel cycle
20 assessment, petroleum displaced, costs, and other impacts
21 or benefits to the state. The plan before you today was
22 developed consistent with the criteria specified in AB
23 1007.
24 After AB 1007 was passed, the Governor issued an
25 Executive Order requiring the Air Resources Board to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 establish a low carbon fuel standard. The Executive Order
2 directed the California Energy Commission to include a
3 draft compliance schedule for the low carbon fuel standard
4 in the Alternative Fuels Plan.
5 As staff will discuss in their presentation, the
6 plan before you is consistent with the goals of 1007 and
7 the Governor's Executive Order. The plan sets goals to
8 increase the use of alternatives fuels in California and
9 it identifies specific actions that should be taken to
10 achieve these goals.
11 The California Energy Commission approved the
12 plan on October 31st. In today's meeting the staff is
13 asking that you also approve the plan. As staff will
14 discuss, we have several modifications that we are
15 proposing. We have discussed these modifications with the
16 Energy Commission staff and they support their inclusion
17 in the plan. In anticipation of the Board's action today,
18 the Energy Commission staff has indicated that they will
19 schedule the modifications to the plan that you approve
20 today for consideration at their next business meeting.
21 At this time, I'd like to acknowledge that Mr.
22 Tim Olson, Manager of the Emerging Fuels and Technology
23 Office of the Energy Commission, is seated with the staff.
24 Mr. Olson is the project manager for the 1007 plan.
25 And I'll now introduce Narcy Gonzalez of our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 Stationary Source Division to begin the staff
2 presentation.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Very good. Thank you.
4 So this is a CEC / ARB side-by-side presentation.
5 Okay. Thank you.
6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
7 Presented as follows.)
8 --o0o--
9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
10 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Goldstene. Good
11 afternoon, Chairman Nichols and members of the Board.
12 Today we'll provide a summary of the State Alternative
13 Fuels Plan developed in response to Assembly Bill 1007.
14 --o0o--
15 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
16 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: Assembly Bill 1007, sponsored by
17 Assemblywoman Pavley, required the Energy Commission, in
18 partnership with ARB, to develop a plan to increase the
19 use of alternative transportation fuels in California.
20 Since 2005, ARB staff has worked with the Energy
21 Commission to complete the Plan. The Energy Commission
22 formally approved the Plan on October 31st.
23 --o0o--
24 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
25 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In developing the Plan, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 legislation directed the CEC to meet three requirements:
2 First, establish alternative fuel use goals for
3 2012, 2017, and 2022. The fuel use goals are intended to
4 meet several criteria, including optimizing environmental
5 and health benefits, maximizing the economic benefits to
6 the state, and minimizing the costs.
7 Second, evaluate the environmental impacts of
8 alternative fuels on a full fuel cycle basis. A full fuel
9 cycle analysis involves the evaluation of the
10 environmental and energy impacts during each step in
11 production and use of alternative fuels, including
12 assessing the emissions of criteria air pollutants, air
13 toxics, and greenhouse gases.
14 And, third, recommend policies and strategies
15 such as standards, incentives, and research and
16 development programs to achieve the fuel use goals.
17 --o0o--
18 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
19 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: This slide shows the alternative
20 fuels evaluated in the analysis. In the analysis, the CEC
21 evaluated the environmental and energy impacts of over 50
22 fuel and feedstock combinations.
23 --o0o--
24 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
25 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In developing the Plan, the CEC
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 staff followed the approach generally outlined on this
2 slide. For each fuel, a full fuel cycle assessment was
3 conducted to determine the emissions of greenhouse gases,
4 criteria pollutants and air toxic, among other impacts.
5 In addition, staff considered the potential for market
6 penetration, potential for petroleum reductions, costs,
7 the status of the technology, and the development and
8 investments required to put the technology into the
9 market. In developing these so-called story lines, the
10 agencies held numerous meetings with stakeholders to help
11 refine the information.
12 In using this information, the CEC then developed
13 three scenarios that represent plausible outcomes for the
14 moderate growth of alternative fuels. These scenarios
15 were not intended to represent all possible outcomes, but
16 were presented just to illustrate possible options. The
17 agencies acknowledge that these scenarios do not represent
18 the full scope of possibilities or represent a policy
19 preference for any fuel or technology. However, this
20 analysis was useful in identifying the actions needed to
21 support each fuel and to set the overall goals.
22 The agencies also considered other state goals in
23 developing the Plan. Finally, the agencies extended the
24 analysis to 2030 and 2050, in recognition of other goals,
25 including the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
181
1 80 percent below 1990 levels, which will likely require a
2 much more aggressive approach than that required to
3 achieve the 2012 to 2022 alternative fuel use goals.
4 --o0o--
5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
6 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: As mentioned, the agencies
7 considered other state policies and directives to develop
8 the plan, and these included:
9 The petroleum reduction goals of AB 2076 for the
10 years 2020 and 2030;
11 The state's goals to attain and maintain state
12 and federal ambient air quality standards;
13 The greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32 and
14 Executive Order S-03-05; and
15 The in-state biofuel production and use goals of
16 the Bioenergy Action Plan developed pursuant to Executive
17 Order S-06-06.
18 --o0o--
19 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
20 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: After AB 1007 was passed, the
21 Governor signed Executive Order S-01-07 in January of
22 2007. This Executive Order established a low carbon fuel
23 standard. The goal of the low carbon fuel standard is to
24 reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 10
25 percent by 2020.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
182
1 The Executive Order directly referenced the
2 Alternative Fuels Plan in two ways:
3 1) By directing the CEC to include a draft
4 compliance schedule for the low carbon fuel standard into
5 the plan; and
6 2) By directing the ARB to consider initiating
7 regulatory proceedings after the low carbon fuel
8 standard -- on the low carbon fuel standard after the CEC
9 submits the plan to the ARB.
10 --o0o--
11 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
12 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In support of the Governor's
13 Executive Order, the University of California jointly
14 developed two reports examining the low carbon fuel
15 standard for California. At the time, the CEC was in the
16 process of completing its own full fuel cycle analysis
17 report for the Alternative Fuels Plan. To coordinate the
18 reports, the CEC accelerated its effort to complete the
19 full fuel cycle analysis so that the University of
20 California researchers could use these results in their
21 reports. In June of 2007, the Commission adopted the full
22 fuel cycle analysis. And this analysis was a key basis
23 for both the University of California reports and the
24 Alternative Fuels Plan.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
183
1 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
2 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: The Plan finds that ambitious, but
3 plausible goals for displacing traditional gasoline and
4 diesel fuels are achievable. The goals listed in this
5 slide, expressed as percent reductions and based on
6 gallons of gasoline equivalent, represent a moderate
7 growth case for all alternative fuels.
8 These goals can be achieved through a combination
9 of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies, and
10 technology innovation is critical. For example, advanced
11 biofuels that can be produced from biomass will require
12 the development of new conversion processes, but offer the
13 potential to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions
14 and petroleum consumption. The Plan also identifies that
15 mandates, incentives, and private investment is needed to
16 achieve the goals.
17 --o0o--
18 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
19 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: To achieve the state's goals
20 particularly in the long term, a multi-part strategy is
21 necessary to maximize the use of alternative fuels,
22 advance vehicle technologies, improve vehicle fuel
23 efficiency, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
24 Finally, the report finds that the low carbon
25 fuel standard will provide a durable framework for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
184
1 production and use of low carbon alternative fuels and
2 will stimulate innovation.
3 --o0o--
4 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
5 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: As mentioned previously, the Plan
6 includes a top-down analysis of the types of changes that
7 would achieve an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas
8 emissions at least from the light-duty transportation
9 sector. Such changes would include using a broad mix of
10 fuels, including advanced biofuels, electricity, hydrogen,
11 and conventional fuels. In addition, achieving the goals
12 will require a dramatic shift in both vehicle efficiency
13 and fuel mix, as well as some significant changes in
14 travel habits. These would include a 20 percent reduction
15 in per capita VMT, a 70-miles-per-gallon real-world fuel
16 economy, and about a 60 percent reduction in the carbon
17 content of fuels.
18 The report acknowledges that the plan and the low
19 carbon fuel standard form important beginning steps to
20 achieving this longer-term goal.
21 --o0o--
22 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
23 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: Based on the findings in the Plan,
24 the report contains several broad recommendations. The
25 Plan recommends that the state provide 100 to $200 million
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
185
1 per year in incentive funding to advance transportation
2 fuels. As you will hear later in your legislative update,
3 the recently enacted Assembly Bill 118 has the potential
4 to provide up to $120 million annually for alternative
5 fuels.
6 --o0o--
7 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
8 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: The report also recommends that the
9 state maximize the use of California's biomass to produce
10 energy and fuels; use a combination of regulations,
11 incentives, and technology innovations to encourage
12 substantial private sector investment; and implement the
13 Plan in a manner that considers the state's multiple
14 policy goals, including not only the need to reduce
15 greenhouse gases, but also to further reduce criteria and
16 toxic pollutants from the use of alternative fuels.
17 --o0o--
18 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
19 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In approving the state's Alternative
20 Fuel Plan, the Energy Commission established alternative
21 transportation fuel goals of 9 percent in 2012, 11 percent
22 in 2017, and 26 percent in 2022, and directed the Energy
23 Commission staff to:
24 Update the plan biannually as part of their
25 Integrated Energy Policy Report updates;
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
186
1 Work with the ARB and others to update the full
2 fuel cycle analysis, develop sustainability standards, and
3 continue to refine the methodology; and
4 Quickly implement AB 118 provisions to provide
5 incentives funding for technology improvement.
6 --o0o--
7 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
8 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In addition, the Energy Commission
9 requested that the ARB:
10 Develop the low carbon fuel standard in a manner
11 consistent with the goals of petroleum reduction, in-state
12 biofuel production, and increased use of alternative
13 fuels;
14 Consider the draft compliance schedule identified
15 by the University of California in developing the low
16 carbon fuel standard; and
17 Consider establishing specific greenhouse gas
18 reduction goals for the transportation sector as part of
19 the implementation of AB 32.
20 --o0o--
21 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
22 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: The staff is proposing several
23 modifications to the report identified in Attachment 1 of
24 the proposed resolution. These changes were provided to
25 the CEC during the plan development, but were
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
187
1 inadvertently not included in the final document
2 considered by the Commission on the 31st.
3 The modifications cover two areas:
4 First, we are recommending changes to emphasize
5 that the Plan is designed to achieve further reductions in
6 criteria pollutants, air toxics, and greenhouse gases and
7 support efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality
8 standards.
9 Second, we're recommending changes to clarify the
10 role hydrogen will play as an alternative fuel.
11 Upon Board request, the Energy Commission will
12 consider only these changes at a future hearing.
13 --o0o--
14 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION AIR POLLUTION
15 SPECIALIST GONZALEZ: In conclusion, the staff is
16 recommending that the Board approve the Plan as approved
17 by the Energy Commission on the 31st -- October 31st,
18 2007, and with the staff's proposed modifications set
19 forth in Attachment 1.
20 We also recommend that you direct staff to
21 develop specific greenhouse gas goals for the
22 transportation sector as part of the scoping plan to be
23 prepared pursuant to AB 32 and continue working with the
24 CEC on:
25 Subsequent updates and refinements to the plan
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
188
1 and report substantive changes back to the Board;
2 Establishing the low carbon fuel standard,
3 including the appropriate compliance schedule; and
4 Ensuring that AB 118 funds provide the maximum
5 possible benefits in terms of air quality improvement and
6 greenhouse gas reduction.
7 Thank you. And that concludes our presentation.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.
9 Do we have any additional comments from our
10 Energy Commission colleagues or --
11 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
12 OLSON: Yeah, I'm Tim Olson with the California Energy
13 Commission. Thank you very much, Chairman Nichols and
14 Board members.
15 We accept these changes that you proposed here.
16 And apologize to everyone for the confusion on this. We
17 had three workshops in the last three weeks before our
18 adoption. And there were lots of things that -- these
19 were the few comments that were vetted and approved by our
20 commissioners that did not get in. And we apologize for
21 that. But do not see any problems with these changes.
22 And we have a commission board meeting scheduled on
23 December 5th to approve what you approved today to conform
24 with your adoption.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And then this can make its
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
189
1 way out.
2 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
3 OLSON: And it makes its way out.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Good. That would be good.
5 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
6 OLSON: And if there are other questions or anything on
7 the plan or as any of the comment today, I'm here to help
8 you answer questions.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Great. Well, we do have
10 several witnesses who've signed up to speak.
11 But are there any preliminary questions?
12 Yes, Supervisor Roberts.
13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: If I could.
14 Do we have and have you completed -- and maybe
15 you have and I haven't seen it -- but is there an analysis
16 of the different fuels and, you know, a comparison from
17 one to another in terms of what it takes to produce
18 those -- the energy it takes to produce the efficiencies
19 of the fuels in comparison to the different types of
20 emissions that result from each of the fuels.
21 MEASURES ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF FRY: Yes, there
22 was a separate full fuel cycle analysis that did just
23 that. And that was adopted by the Energy Commission in
24 June.
25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is there a way that we can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
190
1 get copies of that?
2 MEASURES ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF FRY: Sure.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Why don't you make those
4 available to all the Board members. I think that's a
5 great request. Because we all get questions about these
6 things.
7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Well, there's such a
8 dramatic difference between some of these. And we're
9 talking about alternative fuels like it's a monolithic
10 thing. And there are advantages and disadvantages.
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Absolutely.
12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: And it seems to me that we
13 need to get a little deeper below the surface. And I felt
14 sort of restricted with the information at least that I
15 had before me.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think it's a very good
17 point.
18 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
19 OLSON: Let me make just one other point here.
20 In that full fuel cycle analysis we did 92
21 pathway analyses of various fuels. About a third of those
22 were biofuels. And our feeling was there were probably
23 another couple hundred pathways to evaluate. So we had to
24 make some choices.
25 But there is a pretty good body of information
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
191
1 there that's gleaned from a lot of other sources that this
2 agency here has conducted. The ZEV mandate is an example
3 of one. All the different work groups that you have here,
4 plus our own.
5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You know, I just -- it
6 seems to me that at some point we've got to start looking
7 at the individual options. And while I think we want
8 choices, if the choices aren't equal I think we need to
9 know that.
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
11 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah, let me just follow
12 up on that, not with a question but to reinforce, you
13 know, how important that is; and, in fact, it is
14 especially for this Board and for ARB because we are going
15 through a rulemaking process now. And we will be building
16 upon all of that work in the 1007. That's been absolutely
17 fundamentally so important and is the basis for what will
18 be done here. And the challenge is to take that
19 analytical work and convert it into a rule process and
20 compliance tools and so on.
21 So I think, you know, on the one hand, you know,
22 I think we should be very appreciative of that huge effort
23 and the quality of the effort. But part two is there's a
24 huge challenge still ahead to build upon that.
25 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think it's pretty clear
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
192
1 that this report is sort of a foundational piece that has
2 to be done just so we can move on. But in and of itself
3 it's already almost been superseded by these other
4 mandates and goals that we've set. But it's an important
5 piece, so we want to get as good as we can.
6 All right. So we will hear from a number of
7 witnesses. We start with Paul Wuebben from the South
8 Coast AQMD, followed by Bill Magavern, Sierra Club of
9 California.
10 MR. WUEBBEN: Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman,
11 members of the Board. I'm Paul Wuebben with the South
12 Coast Air Quality Management District.
13 We're very pleased to support the adoption of the
14 plan today. We've been very involved in the development
15 of it. And we're very encouraged that the staff have made
16 tremendous efforts to reflect air quality needs and goals
17 in the report. And the modifications that you see in
18 front of you today I think go in that direction as well.
19 So overall, we consider this plan to be a very crucial
20 foundation to dealing with the trio of issues that I think
21 all of our agencies are confronting: Energy depletion and
22 climate change and air quality.
23 As you know, the South Coast Air Basin has a
24 particularly acute need for alternative fuel and low
25 emission technologies. We represent 25 percent of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
193
1 nation's exposure to unhealthful PM2.5. We represent over
2 50 percent of the nation's exposure to ozone. And so
3 the -- and also I think that our board and efforts have
4 established crucial marketplace anchors really for
5 alternative fuel development. And you see that in the
6 natural gas area in particular.
7 One area I just did want to reinforce quickly is
8 that we're very pleased to see the plan place significant
9 emphasis on the role of electric drivetrain technologies
10 as a transitional and a core technology area. It offers
11 an opportunity for all of the fuels to achieve their
12 maximum fuel efficiency. You can see that in terms of
13 bringing forward the next generation lithium ion
14 batteries; ultimately fuel cells; certainly in the natural
15 gas arena -- or the natural gas, LNG and CNG; and then
16 even in the optimized FFE area with respect to biofuels.
17 We appreciate that this was a complex task.
18 There are different timelines for each of the fuels.
19 There are different set of barriers. The low carbon fuel
20 standard is certainly a very natural outgrowth of this
21 entire effort, so we'll be vigorously participating in
22 that.
23 But on balance we definitely want to congratulate
24 the Board and the staffs of both agencies for taking this
25 important milestone effort. We think this is really the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
194
1 milestone in acknowledging that our future will have to
2 involve a large and growing portion of alternative fuels
3 in the entire mix.
4 So with that, we certainly support the adoption
5 and we're happy to be strong partners and cooperate with
6 you as you move to address or implement the objectives of
7 the plan.
8 So thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
10 Bill Magavern, followed by Todd Campbell.
11 MR. MAGAVERN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Board
12 members. I'm Bill Magavern with Sierra Club of
13 California. And we support the broad conclusions of the
14 report, especially the recognition that we need a
15 multi-faceted approach, including the increased use of
16 alternative fuels, significant improvements in the energy
17 efficiency of the vehicle fleet, and reducing trips and
18 vehicle miles traveled through changes in travel habits
19 and land management policies.
20 We also think coordinating the multiple state
21 policies will help focus state efforts on alternative
22 fuels, and that extending the report to include a vision
23 for 2050 was wise.
24 As you go forward and implement both the low
25 carbon fuel standard and AB 118, both of which we support,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
195
1 we have some concerns that we ask you to keep in mind.
2 First of all, I'm very glad to hear that you're
3 going to enhance the focus on air quality, because, you
4 know, obviously that should be a prominent concern.
5 Secondly, glad that the report does reflect some
6 recognition of the importance of sustainability. As we
7 learn more and more about some of the methods of biofuels
8 production, the sustainability concerns are really
9 becoming more and more important to us.
10 Also, we want to make sure that all fuels and
11 technologies are put on a level playing field. We think
12 that this plan does suffer from an overemphasis on
13 hydrogen fuel cell technology compared to some other more
14 viable technologies, and that it's important that you
15 utilize technological neutrality and equal treatment of
16 the different zero-emission-vehicle technologies. And in
17 particular we think there are a number of instances where
18 this report did not give due consideration to battery
19 electric technologies.
20 We're glad to see that it does have consideration
21 of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. We're also bullish
22 on plug-ins. But, for example, where the report says that
23 if lithium ion batteries and plug-ins are successful,
24 there will be a natural progression to the plug-in
25 vehicles. We think there might also be a potential for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
196
1 progression to all-electric battery vehicles.
2 There are other specific references along similar
3 lines that are in the written comments that we'd submitted
4 for the record. And just appreciate your taking these
5 concerns into your notice as you move forward with
6 implementation.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
9 I think there's always an issue in these things
10 of balance. And, you know, the attention between being
11 neutral about technologies and not trying to pick winners
12 but at the same time being realistic about what we're
13 demanding in terms of air quality and greenhouse gases is
14 a tough one. And I'm sure we're going to be hearing from
15 other people who feel that one or another technology
16 wasn't given its due. And I think what we'd like to do is
17 to give everybody as much of their due as possible, but at
18 the same time, you know, keep our eye on the ball.
19 So I appreciate your acknowledgement that that's
20 what's needed here.
21 Yes.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I agree that we shouldn't
23 be picking winners and losers. But -- I guess I have to
24 confess that I have not thoroughly read the report. I've
25 quickly gone through the executive summary and just
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
197
1 listened to the staff presentation here.
2 Would you propose something in terms of future
3 analysis on BEVs? Did you feel that it wasn't adequately
4 analyzed?
5 MR. MAGAVERN: Yes.
6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Or is it some other
7 concern that you have?
8 MR. MAGAVERN: Yes. Actually we think that some
9 of the scenarios did not give the comprehensive analysis
10 to the battery electrics that it did to other
11 technologies.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff respond to
13 that as far as perhaps the next -- it seems that this is a
14 work in progress. So for the next round could you
15 incorporate additional analyses regarding BEVs?
16 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
17 OLSON: Yes. In fact, that's a good point. This is a I
18 snapshot in time for us. We did include it in the full
19 fuel cycle analysis report. We have some more -- kind of
20 more in-depth treatment and discussion in the companion
21 documents that fed into this report.
22 Part of the issue on the report is it's going to
23 go to the Legislature. And there's a decision at some
24 point to make it an 80-page document, not a thousand-page
25 document. So there were lots of condensing efforts here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
198
1 Our view is that we're open to any additional
2 information that needs to be verifiable. And we need to
3 see some -- a whole range of different entities involved
4 in it: Automakers, various parts of the infrastructure,
5 utilities in this case. And so I think our overall
6 assessment, that this battery electric might be in the
7 range of three percent of just the electric drive area.
8 But we're open to any additional information, not only
9 affecting this report but also how we develop our
10 investment plan for AB 118, how we propose or influence
11 the low carbon fuel standard, how we influence AB 32 and
12 the scoping plan. So we're very open to that process.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate that comment.
14 And I think we need to give some thought to what the most
15 effective way for us to have input into that as well.
16 Thank you.
17 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: And I
18 would also just mention that one of the recommendations
19 that both the Commission directed at staff and we're
20 suggesting that you direct us to do too is to kind of
21 revisit this plan every couple of years, as we know the
22 technology is sort of developing sometimes at a rapid rate
23 in some areas, sometimes not so much in other areas. So
24 we fully intend to kind of continue to evaluate the
25 Alternative Fuels Plan in that context.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
199
1 And so, as Tim said, this was a snapshot in time.
2 I think both between this revisiting of the Alternative
3 Fuels Plan as part of the Integrated Energy Policy
4 Reports, which are required every two years, and also
5 consideration of the work that's going to go on in the
6 next year for the low carbon fuel standard, well, we'll
7 try to figure out a good way to incorporate electricity as
8 a fuel into that standard. I think both of those
9 mechanisms will provide for another opportunity to vet
10 information on not only electricity but other fuels as
11 well.
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Professor Sperling.
13 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: This is a very important
14 discussion because of the follow-up. You know, I would
15 note that I'm not -- I guess I wouldn't be so concerned
16 about what might appear to be biases in the report or not,
17 one, because we have the low carbon fuel standard which is
18 based upon using a carbon metric, a greenhouse gas metric.
19 And as long as the models and the analysis is done well,
20 you know, the biases fall away to some extent in terms of
21 using that as a metric.
22 Where I get -- and I think in that 118 report the
23 life cycle analysis was done well. You know, there has to
24 be some updating, but I think that was done very well, and
25 that's not the issue or the problem. The problem and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
200
1 issue is follow-up on that. One is the 118 both for the
2 Energy Commission and ARB is to make sure that we develop
3 a set of criteria that are responsive to whatever our
4 goals really are. And this idea of technology neutrality
5 is a complicated one and far too simple. For one thing,
6 you know, there's the short and the long term. You know,
7 we need to develop a strategy that makes changes and gets
8 technologies out there for the short term, but also lays
9 the foundation for innovations leading to the longer-term
10 options that are going to give us much greater reductions.
11 And so, you know, my thought -- the important
12 thought here is -- for the immediate near term is 118 is
13 how we develop those criteria to make sure that we are
14 being responsive to both near- and long-term
15 considerations as we design that and also responsive to
16 the R&D that's needed, the innovation that's needed, as
17 well as actual displacements and reductions that are
18 desired.
19 And the third -- so the third part is that -- and
20 it's less relevant to immediate discussions -- and, that
21 is, there are other policies and laws and incentive
22 programs that are going to be developed. And that's where
23 I think we have to be especially careful about going back
24 to this plan or not and thinking through what these
25 other -- you know, what these policies and laws and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
201
1 incentive might be.
2 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I agree. This is not the
3 last word on the subject, by any means. It's kind of a
4 foundation piece. But I think the recommendation that we
5 set a -- or direct the staff to recommend to us through
6 the AB 32 process a limit for the transportation sector is
7 one way of making it very clear what the requirements are
8 going to be.
9 SUPERVISOR HILL: Madam Chair if I could just --
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
11 SUPERVISOR HILL: And I think Professor Sperling
12 mentioned it, and obviously the biases that may be
13 indicative of the report, and Mr. Magavern talked about in
14 the letters a number of issues. And I want to especially
15 relate it to the BEVs and the comparison to the hydrogen
16 vehicles and the cost differential involved in the
17 preference for hydrogen even though the cost is
18 substantially greater than the BEV.
19 So these things will be worked out, I guess, is
20 what I was hearing in the process. So it's nothing to be
21 concerned with today is what I'm hearing. So that's very
22 good.
23 Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I think this discussion is
25 useful, because these are reservations or concerns that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
202
1 have been expressed during the course of this report being
2 prepared. And I think having the Board members express
3 these views is helpful in terms of having the message be
4 heard.
5 Okay. Todd Campbell and then Mike Eaves.
6 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and
7 members of the Board. Todd Campbell, Director of Public
8 Policy for Clean Energy.
9 Couple things. One, we want to say that we are
10 very appreciative of the Air Resources Board's as well as
11 the Energy Commission's work on this report. I think
12 staff has worked very hard pulling this very comprehensive
13 plan together in a very short time period. And because
14 there was a legislative time period, I think that, you
15 know, it's inevitable that it won't be perfect. And it's
16 very encouraging to know that this will be a continued
17 work in progress of sorts.
18 We were also very encouraged that air quality
19 changes were put in here and that the Air Resources Board
20 is aware and trying to make improvements on ensuring the
21 air quality is intact as well.
22 I guess where we get concerned -- and this is
23 where the difficulty of fuel neutrality is -- is that
24 where we come out neutral on this, Clean Energy does, and
25 the industry will also speak afterwards, it's because we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
203
1 think that we were fairly under-represented in the
2 light-duty market.
3 And in a couple of places, in fact in the changes
4 here, some concerns that are being presented to you are
5 trying to educate on electric and hydrogen but not on
6 natural gas vehicles. We think that you need to educate
7 consumers about all vehicles.
8 In fact, if we're going to meet the very goals
9 that Clean Energy has supported, AB 32, certainly worked
10 on AB -- the Speaker's bill that just passed, as well as
11 being very supportive of this agency moving forward in
12 greenhouse gas reductions, you need to educate and support
13 all vehicles moving forward. But also in some of the
14 provisions it's trying to ensure that natural gas stations
15 are also compatible with hydrogen. And we're certainly
16 very well supportive of that.
17 But the problem also is that for whatever reason
18 the suggestion to facilitate automotive production of
19 dedicated passenger fuel-cell vehicles is concerning
20 especially if you're going to ask a business to invest in
21 building that infrastructure. We really think that the
22 Air Resources Board should be pushing all manufacturer --
23 or the manufacturer of all vehicles, including natural gas
24 vehicles, for a number of reasons.
25 The second point I'd like to raise is Clean
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
204
1 Energy's extremely supportive of what the Air Resources
2 Board is trying to do, not just in greenhouse gases but
3 for air quality. You look at the ports, for example, the
4 Clean Air Action Plan where they're suggesting a potential
5 5300 LNG drayage trucks servicing that area. We put up
6 over $60 million to put in a plant in boron to fuel those
7 trucks. We've done additional commitments close to the
8 California border with Arizona for another 50,000 gallons.
9 So certainly Clean Energy is very much in support
10 of trying to clean up the air, not just in the South Coast
11 Air Basin, but we hope that we could continue to do that
12 in other areas.
13 One of the things that we came up against in this
14 report was staff was concerned about the light-duty
15 vehicle market growing: One, for vehicles cost; second,
16 for lack of OEMs; and, third, because of cleanliness of
17 diesel was catching up to natural gas vehicles.
18 One, I would like to say that historically
19 natural gas vehicles has driven this market and, in fact,
20 giving credibility to the heavy-duty market by producing
21 by EPA at the certification of a 2010 engine. And from
22 what I understand, the Air Resources Board is just about
23 to certify the heavy-duty engine for Westport for natural
24 gas to, you know, back up and provide credibility for that
25 vehicle.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
205
1 Second, if you look around the world, we went
2 from four million to five million vehicles in 2004 to --
3 or 2005 to 2006 with natural gas vehicles. In fact, if
4 you look at all the data, you actually find that there are
5 several vehicles - Citroen, Fiat, Ford, Mercedes Benz,
6 Opel, Peugot, Volkswagen, Audi, Renault, Chrysler, Volvo -
7 all these manufacturers make natural gas vehicles. And we
8 feel that those hurdles are minor. When we look at the
9 hurdles --
10 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You're out of time.
11 MR. CAMPBELL: I understand that, Madam Chair.
12 If I can make just a couple more points, and I'll be very
13 brief.
14 When we read about, for example, biofuels, even
15 in the low carbon fuel standard first report that Board
16 Member Sperling put together, where it's very clearly
17 stated in this report that the values are in certain terms
18 of fuel production, that the facilities to actually
19 produce these fuels don't exist, that the feedstocks are
20 not commercially grown, or that the conversion processes
21 are not commercially viable, it concerns us and we feel
22 like we're not being fairly treated when we know that
23 actually the technology exists, it's being put -- the
24 vehicles actually exist throughout the world. We have
25 small volume manufacturers in the United States for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
206
1 light-duty vehicle market.
2 And, in fact, just on economics alone, which are
3 not -- you know, are clearly demonstrated in the report
4 but not being shown and reflected in the projections of
5 the light-duty vehicle market, we just simply do not agree
6 that fuel cells will replace natural gas vehicles in the
7 light-duty vehicle market in 2020.
8 And as an advocate that stood up for the zero
9 emission bus program or within the transit bus rule, I
10 would have loved to have seen the 15 percent purchase of
11 fuel cell transit buses next year. Unfortunately cost and
12 economic didn't pan out for that. But, however, the
13 transit side that pursued natural gas not only has a very
14 significant cost savings but is building the bridge.
15 Hopefully the hydrogen and some of these changes that are
16 being presented before you today with biomethane
17 demonstrate that there is a bridge, a very clear bridge
18 between natural gas and hydrogen vehicles. So we think
19 we're going to build that.
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You've made your point, Mr.
21 Campbell. Thank you.
22 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I appreciate it. And I
24 know you've participated in the workshops and expect
25 you'll continue to be involved and keep raising the points
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
207
1 in every forum where it's appropriate.
2 MR. CAMPBELL: Absolutely.
3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Madam Chair?
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Campbell and I spoke
6 earlier today before I actually had an opportunity to go
7 through this resolution, and I did commit to him that I
8 would encourage staff through a resolution -- a change in
9 the resolution to look at updated light-duty market
10 penetration projections. But I actually think, and just
11 wanted to say this on the record, that the resolution in
12 paragraph seven I think adequately addresses your
13 concerns, and just want to get a commitment from staff to
14 continue, not just on natural gas, but as we discussed
15 earlier to look at progress in all areas. And the
16 relative paragraph just reads, "The Plan should be viewed
17 as part of a continuum that requires periodic update and
18 refinement," et cetera.
19 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
20 Mike Eaves, followed by Mark Sweeney.
21 MR. EAVES: Thank you, Madam Chair and Board
22 members. Todd didn't eat into my time, did he?
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. EAVES: I think the light-duty market is
25 important. You know, we worked with Energy Commission and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
208
1 CARB for well over a year on this report. And we're very
2 pleased with where it stands on changing the status quo on
3 natural gas from where it was one year ago to what it is
4 now.
5 The light-duty market though is very significant
6 for us. And we have been entertaining discussions with
7 staff trying to get on board, to not wait for the two-year
8 cycle for revision but to actually start addressing some
9 issues that we have with light duty now and see if we can
10 become in sync with one another on what market projections
11 could be for light-duty natural gas vehicles, simply
12 because there's a great opportunity to go out and bring
13 U.S. OEMs back into the picture given the situation in
14 California where the goals and objectives are for
15 petroleum reduction, greenhouse gas reduction, air
16 quality, economics. There are multi-faceted issues now
17 that we didn't have even five years ago with natural gas
18 vehicle manufacturers.
19 So I think it's important that those discussions
20 take place and not wait for a two-year update.
21 A couple things -- I don't know. Do you have the
22 report in front of you or not? I'm not sure if you do.
23 I'd like to go through some things that you might not be
24 aware of.
25 In this forecast there are projections that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
209
1 natural gas can be a 2.5 to 5 billion market in
2 California, substitution for petroleum, by 2050. And the
3 cost savings outweigh the first -- the cost savings in
4 fuel outweigh the first costs.
5 If you take a look at Table 1 -- at page 68,
6 Figure 16, you'll see natural gas is the fastest payback
7 of any fuel technology.
8 If you look at Table 12 on page 73, you're going
9 to see that the natural gas is the best cost effectiveness
10 in petroleum reduction.
11 If you look at Table 13 on page 73, you're going
12 to see that natural gas has the best cost effectiveness in
13 greenhouse gas reduction.
14 This is not too bad in a market today where
15 natural gas vehicle owners are saving a dollar to a dollar
16 seventy a gallon today on long-term fuel price contracts,
17 where you can achieve 23 to 30 percent greenhouse gas
18 reductions just if you take the same vehicles on the road
19 and convert those into natural gas.
20 So we think that this report is a good start.
21 We'd like to work with staff to beef up the projections on
22 the light-duty market so that we can have an opportunity
23 to go to Detroit and get U.S. manufacturers reengaged in
24 the market.
25 And thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
210
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
2 Mark Sweeney, followed by Randal Friedman.
3 MR. SWEENEY: Madam Chair, Board members. I
4 appreciate the opportunity to share our comments with you
5 today. My name is Mark Sweeney. I'm an economist. I'm
6 representing NGV America, which is the national NGV
7 Association.
8 And what I want to do is focus on the disparity
9 between the underlying economic analyses that were done in
10 preparing the report and the conclusions that are actually
11 in the report.
12 We spent a lot of time and energy, as did Mike
13 Eaves and representatives of the California Coalition, in
14 working with the staff to get the economics of NGV right
15 in this report. And we appreciate the cooperation of Tim
16 Olson and his staff. They were willing to listen to what
17 we had to say. And basically we think that the economic
18 analysis for NGVs is pretty close to being right on in the
19 report. And Mike cited some of that information.
20 Now, what we didn't expect -- we assumed that if
21 we could get the economics right, which was in the case
22 two years ago for the 2076 report. The economics on
23 natural gas were completely missed in that, and that's why
24 we focused on trying to get that right this time around.
25 But what we didn't expect was that there'd be a complete
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
211
1 disconnect between the economic analysis and the
2 conclusions that are shown in the report.
3 And what I'd like to ask you to do is look at
4 page 38, Figure 5, in the report for those of you who have
5 it in front of you. And looking down the left column
6 under "Technology," down to "Gaseous Technologies," and
7 then the next subheading is "NGVs". And if you look at
8 this flow chart, basically what it concludes is that the
9 light-duty NGV market is going to be entirely displaced by
10 hydrogen fuel cells in the 2020 time frame. And when I
11 looked at this, I thought that that's interesting, because
12 it's completely inconsistent with our expectations and
13 also the results of the economic analysis that had been
14 done by the staff.
15 So then I went back to look at the economic
16 analysis. It in theory ought to support this conclusion.
17 And there was a document dated October 14th that was put
18 out which provided the underlying economic analysis that
19 was done for the report. And I want to look at a couple
20 different numbers for 2020.
21 Based on the underlying economic analysis, the
22 incremental cost of hydrogen fuel cells in 2020 is
23 estimated to be between 64 and $142,000 per vehicle above
24 and beyond the cost of a conventional vehicle. You know,
25 the staff made absolutely heroic economic assumptions
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
212
1 about how quickly the substantial obstacles standing in
2 the way of fuel cells would be overcome. For example,
3 they assumed that hydrogen would be priced at 3 to $4 a
4 gallon in 2007 dollars. Well, if you can get hydrogen
5 today, it's going to cost you 10 to $12 a gallon. So they
6 assume in 2007 it's 3 to $4 a gallon. In the real
7 marketplace it's like 10 to 12 if you can get it. So --
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mr. Sweeney, your time has
9 expired.
10 MR. SWEENEY: Okay. Let me just wind up.
11 Basically the conclusion that light-duty NGV
12 market will be displaced by hydrogen fuel cells is
13 entirely inconsistent and unsupported by the economic
14 analysis that was done for the report.
15 The Commission has talked time and again about
16 not picking winners and losers. But I would ask you to
17 look at page 38 in the report. And what's happening there
18 is that light-duty NGVs are clearly identified as losers
19 and hydrogen fuel cells the winner. And we're concerned
20 about the signal that that sends to the people we're
21 working with to convince to make new product available to
22 the marketplace.
23 Thank you very much.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
25 Randal Friedman, followed by Marc Geller.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
213
1 MR. FRIEDMAN: Madam Chair, Board members.
2 Randal Friedman on behalf of the United States Navy.
3 Through a combination of federal executive orders
4 and Congressional actions, the military is a very
5 aggressive promoter and user of alternative fuels. We're
6 involved in geothermal and wind and solar, hydrogen. In
7 fact, Camp Pendleton is soon to be opening a publicly
8 accessible hydrogen fueling station.
9 But our bread and butter is biodiesel. By Navy
10 directive, all nontactical vehicles in California have to
11 be operated on a 20 percent biodiesel formulation.
12 There's many installations in California where the only
13 diesel fuel available is the B-20 biodiesel.
14 Why is this especially significant for you to
15 consider? We still have concerns about the long-term
16 ability for us to be in regulatory compliance with your
17 upcoming diesel retrofit rules and still use B-20. Up
18 through the end of this year Senator Ashburn had done
19 legislation that provided regulatory assurance. That
20 legislation sunsets after this year. So as of next
21 January we're back in kind of this regulatory void of
22 whether or not it is legal for our thousands of vehicles
23 in California -- and this isn't just us. There's a lot of
24 municipal fleets, there's a lot of universities that our
25 B-20 biodiesel really has become a standard for fleet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
214
1 operators.
2 It's a fuel that's available now. It runs in
3 diesel engines without any modifications. It's
4 domestically produced. It's something where the money
5 that's spent on it stays in this country and doesn't go
6 overseas. It's got a lot going for it. I know there's
7 issues out there. We have found it necessary to do our
8 own fuel spec for our purchase. And as I pointed out at
9 the workshops, we certainly see a role for ARB to use your
10 regulatory powers to make sure that biodiesel is the best
11 formulation used in California. But what's lacking I
12 think in this fuel plan is recognition that, unlike some
13 of these other alternative fuels that might be more
14 considered pie in the sky, biodiesel is here now. It's
15 proven effective. It's used, not just by us, by a number
16 of other fleets. It can be a solution now.
17 But your agency does have regulatory issues. And
18 as of now there -- I mean I know that -- I've heard your
19 staff talk about the things that are going on. But the
20 simple fact is there still is no written policy of this
21 agency that says it is legal to use biodiesel -- B-20
22 biodiesel with all the diesel retrofit rules. There's
23 been a draft policy that's been floated for at least a
24 year. It still is draft.
25 Our concern is if you're trying in the long run
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
215
1 through a planned framework to establish -- and, you know,
2 excuse the pun -- but grow an industry, you need to
3 provide regulatory certainty that that fuel can be used in
4 the vehicles that it's intended to be used in. And that
5 simply doesn't exist for biodiesel.
6 So I would -- you know, we would ask that you
7 take this opportunity to make sure that biodiesel, and
8 B-20 in particular, has a place in California, that your
9 agency ensures that it can continue to be used within your
10 regulations. And I would encourage you to use your
11 agency's powers as well to even make it a better fuel and
12 to resolve some of the issues. And certainly go with our
13 experience that we've had us being the primary user of
14 biodiesel in the state.
15 Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
17 Marc Geller and then Tim Carmichael.
18 MR. GELLER: Hello, members of the Board. I'm
19 Marc Geller from Plug in America.
20 And Plug in America supports the immediate
21 actions outlined in the section on electric transportation
22 technology.
23 Moving the transportation sector as much as
24 possible from liquid and gaseous fuels to grid electricity
25 will provide the greatest possible benefit in our efforts
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
216
1 to reduce greenhouse gases and petroleum dependence with
2 minimal infrastructure cost.
3 The plan emphasizes the benefits of accelerating
4 plug-in hybrids, and we heartily endorse this effort. We
5 believe this will yield tremendous benefit, especially in
6 terms of reducing battery cost. This in turn will result
7 in a scenario not outlined in the plan, and which ought to
8 be taken into account. Significant market penetration of
9 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will make full battery
10 electric vehicles, as Mr. Magavern mentioned, a more
11 practicable and lower cost option than envisioned. The
12 benefits will be much greater than the plan's alternative
13 scenarios. This is especially true, as we know that the
14 electric grid itself is getting cleaner and more renewable
15 over time.
16 So please take this additional scenario into
17 consideration when you're revising the ZEV program, as you
18 will be doing early next year.
19 And I think it's not irrelevant to point out that
20 I drove here today from San Francisco on one charge on a
21 vehicle that exists because of the achievements of the ARB
22 in the last decade, a Toyota RAV 4 EV that's still going,
23 has 53,000 miles on it. When I go back to the garage it
24 will be fully charged and I will drive home again on one
25 charge. And I think it's just -- there are many more
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
217
1 people who would like to be doing this.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I agree.
4 Tim Carmichael, followed by Bonnie Holmes-Gen.
5 MR. CARMICHAEL: Members of the Board. Tim
6 Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air.
7 I refer you to page three of the resolution that
8 your staff prepared for you guys today. And just say that
9 I first want to support everything that the staff is
10 recommending for changes to the report and Board action
11 today. So for the record, we're supporting what your
12 staff's recommending.
13 And then the second point is, I want to share a
14 perspective. If you look at the first "Whereas the Board
15 finds that" the plan establishes targets. This is, you
16 know, the alternative fuel target. Where is this plan
17 going to take us? And I think we all know from our
18 discussions about the SIP that adopting a plan is not
19 enough. What are you going to do to actually achieve the
20 plan goals or the plan targets?
21 So 26 percent alternative fuels by 2022.
22 And I'd ask you just to make a little cheat note
23 to yourself.
24 Today, light duty, roughly 75 percent of the fuel
25 used in the state; heavy duty, roughly 25 percent of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
218
1 fuel.
2 Today, alternative fuels, depending on how you
3 count. If you count ethanol in the light-duty mix, maybe
4 6, maybe 7 percent of the light-duty mix is alternative
5 fuels.
6 If you count all the alternative fuels in the
7 heavy-duty sector, 1 percent, may be a little bit more
8 than 1 percent.
9 So going from those numbers to 26 percent by 2022
10 is not going to happen without pushing from the
11 government. You know, I think there's going to be a great
12 force in the rising price of gasoline. But this agency
13 has so much potential to really push this, not only for
14 California but for the world. And let me, you know,
15 highlight for you those opportunities that you have just
16 in the next 12 months. And every one of those I encourage
17 you, and I'll try my best to remind you, what is the
18 alternative fuel push in this regulation?
19 In December you've got the Port Trucks Rule.
20 In February you're considering changes to the
21 Zero Emission Vehicle Program and potentially a broader
22 change to how we treat light-duty vehicles.
23 Next September it's the Private Truck Fleet Rule.
24 In every one of those cases you're going to have
25 the opportunity to, either through regulation by requiring
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
219
1 it or through effective incentive mechanisms, push the
2 increased use of alternative fuels.
3 Somebody made a reference to technology
4 neutrality and somebody made a reference to fuel
5 neutrality. Historically we've really struggled with that
6 and felt like that policy held this agency back to
7 accommodate dirty diesel in some cases, that we weren't
8 prepared to push further than diesel could go. And one of
9 the ways we look at this plan and what it does for this
10 agency going forward is it removes your handcuffs.
11 Frankly you are no longer a technology neutral or a fuel
12 neutral agency, because petroleum is not the same as
13 everything else as far as the State of California is
14 concerned going forward.
15 So you need to be looking at alternative fuels as
16 more important, better than petroleum. Because if we
17 don't have that perspective, if you don't have that, you
18 know, push for alternative fuels, we will not achieve 26
19 percent by 2022, we will not achieve our climate goals, we
20 will not achieve our SIP goals.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. Thank you for
22 that overview.
23 Our final witness is Bonnie Holmes-Gen.
24 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good afternoon, Board members.
25 Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
220
1 California.
2 And the American Lung Association is committed to
3 pursuing dramatic reductions in petroleum fuels and
4 diversity in fuels, because we do believe that this is a
5 very important goal to meet our air quality and our
6 greenhouse gas reduction goals. And we do agree that the
7 1007 report that's before you is an important foundation
8 in that it lays out the pathway to achieve those goals.
9 And there's certainly some areas for improvement that have
10 been discussed earlier.
11 But it also -- I'd just like to reiterate, as Tim
12 Carmichael said, it also places the ARB now squarely in an
13 important role in the development of alternative fuels
14 policies and the rollout of key funding in this state to
15 develop and deploy alternative fuel vehicles and
16 technologies. You're now in a very key role.
17 And we want to emphasize that -- I don't want to
18 forget this comment. We want to emphasize that as you're
19 moving forward in overseeing the rollout of these
20 important funds in AB 118, this is over 125 plus million
21 dollars per year, that we're relying on you to make sure
22 that we're getting it right from an air quality
23 perspective. And we want to see lots of alternative
24 fuels. We want to get rid of our reliance. We want to
25 kick the habit of petroleum, definitely, certainly. But
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
221
1 we don't want to move to fuels that are going to cause us
2 to backtrack on our air quality commitments. And I know
3 you understand that. But I just want to remind you that
4 we're relying on you to make sure that we get it right.
5 We don't think that we should be moving forward
6 as a state to incentivize fuels under a low carbon fuel
7 standard or otherwise promote alternative fuel blends
8 until we have good information that these fuels are not
9 increasing our criteria or toxic pollutant emissions or
10 that we know that there are mitigation strategies readily
11 available that can be employed and will be employed to
12 address those emission reductions.
13 And, in fact, AB 118 actually gives you specific
14 responsibility in the statute to develop air quality
15 criteria for fuels and to make sure that we are not
16 backsliding on those air quality commitments. So we hope
17 that you will move forward very quickly to start that
18 process and develop that criteria, because the Energy
19 Commission needs to have that as they're starting to look
20 at how to form this AB 118 program.
21 And, in fact, you know, I was thinking that you
22 might want to calendar for Board discussion some more
23 briefings on some of the various alternative fuel options
24 and the air quality and greenhouse gas reduction benefits
25 and challenges that are being faced, just to give you a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
222
1 stronger basis.
2 I know that this will come out to some degree in
3 the discussion of the low carbon fuel standard regulation.
4 I mean that's obviously a big item on your agenda. But I
5 think that you might want to spend some more time really
6 digging into these issues and understanding the status of
7 some of these air quality issues, because there certainly
8 are fuels that are relied on heavily in the 1007 scenarios
9 such as some biofuel blends that still have some
10 uncertainties in terms of the air quality impacts that
11 need to be resolved. And I know you know that and you're
12 doing some research. But I think that needs to be
13 carefully reevaluated.
14 And I also just wanted to thank you for your
15 emphasis in developing comments on the 1007 report that
16 the air quality focus needed to be beefed up. And I
17 wanted just to make sure that you are sure that those
18 additions are going to be incorporated into the final
19 report and not just attached as an addendum or -- you
20 know, I want to make sure that you know for sure that
21 those are going to be incorporated in the final document
22 that's released to the public. So I want to make sure you
23 get that certain, because we think that's very important
24 to make sure those air quality criteria in the State
25 Implementation Plan goals and criteria in that -- that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
223
1 you've inserted into the 1007 report are included in the
2 final.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
5 That concludes the public testimony.
6 Staff have any additional wrap-up comments that
7 you would like to make in response to what you've heard?
8 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
9 OLSON: Yes. Tim Olson, Energy Commission.
10 I'd like to make just a couple comments. Again,
11 repeat that this was a snapshot in time. There was a
12 reference that we were going to do this -- kind of revisit
13 this every two years. My understanding is our
14 commissioners are asking to do this every year, not every
15 two years.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Oh, good.
17 CEC EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICE MANAGER
18 OLSON: So that's one step.
19 And that in the course of this, you know, I
20 appreciate the different kind of stakeholder groups that
21 came to the meetings and participated in this. It
22 stimulated better verification of data for us. And we got
23 into these situations where we had to do freezes in time
24 just to complete the report. And we're hoping that that
25 process will continue, that engagement, and that we can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
224
1 bring in some of the other players like automakers and
2 other people, who did not spend the same amount of time,
3 and help us get this kind of verification that we need in
4 a public transparent way.
5 And in response to Bonnie's comment, yes, we will
6 include all the changes that are adopted here in our
7 report, not as an addendum but as a change.
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Very good. Thank you.
9 Supervisor Roberts, you want to help the Navy out
10 here?
11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: No, I'm not going to speak
12 to that.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That was a stereotype. I'm
14 sorry.
15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'm glad to see them here,
16 and I understand their issue.
17 But I -- I don't know, I'm sitting here and I'm
18 very uncomfortable. And I guess it's because of some of
19 the thing that I'm aware of that have developed more
20 recently with respect to one of our utility companies and
21 in the importation of natural gas. And I'm learning as
22 we're dealing with an issue in southern California that we
23 may be substituting imported natural gas for imported
24 petroleum. And I'm not so sure that there's any great
25 wisdom in that. But somebody who thinks that only
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
225
1 petroleum is a problem, it seems to me, may get a great
2 deal of comfort out of that.
3 But there are some major issues that at least --
4 that have come to my attention with respect to natural gas
5 that have me very concerned. There are some major issues
6 that I'm aware of with respect to some of our bio-products
7 where it takes just as much energy to produce as you're
8 going to get energy out of them. So, you know, you may be
9 helping more full employment, but you're not necessarily
10 achieving anything.
11 And I'm very concerned about some of the
12 implications of not only the air quality standards, but in
13 some of these things the performance standards. And we've
14 invested heavily in a fleet of natural gas buses now. And
15 I'm being told that we're going to have now a new kind of
16 natural gas with a different methane rating, and a whole
17 series of operational questions come to mind.
18 We really need I think by our staff -- I think we
19 need to go back a step. And I don't care about being
20 neutral, because I think we need to learn about what's
21 going on here. And we're going to have everybody in the
22 world trying to sell their product. And to say we're
23 going to sit here and we're going to be neutral and let
24 everybody go out and sell, that causes me some great deal
25 of concern.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
226
1 And we're going to have elected officials who
2 have already bought into certain products tell us those
3 are the only solutions. And I'm concerned about that.
4 And I think we've got to back up a step and do the best
5 analysis we can, and then on a regular basis have a
6 systematic way that we can look to see what's developed,
7 and understand both the short term, medium term -- I guess
8 all three. And that's what Professor Sperling was saying.
9 I'm convinced we need to do that. We need to look at both
10 the intermediate and what are reserves and where are we
11 going to get this product in the future, or what is the --
12 how are you going to make it? What are you going to make
13 the hydrogen from and where are you going to get that.
14 I think these are things that I don't feel
15 particularly qualified right now. And, you know, I would
16 have liked to I guess seen, before we got into even
17 adopting this thing that's before us, that we got a little
18 bit better educated with respect to the options, because
19 they're not all created equal. You know, all of them will
20 have advocates projecting a bright future for all of them.
21 But that's not necessarily the case. And I guess to the
22 extent that we're -- you know, we're expecting some
23 miracle to happen and prices are going to come down or
24 prices are going to go up, I'd like to know what those
25 assumptions are. But I feel like if we could maybe
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
227
1 schedule something and we have that information and we get
2 more in depth into that.
3 I don't have a problem with adopting this today.
4 But I think that we've got some -- at least I will say
5 this for myself. I've got a -- there's a lot going on
6 here and I don't feel particularly qualified to be making
7 decisions. And I don't think to dismiss it as being
8 neutral is necessarily the way to go. We have to start
9 spending money on research and other things. I want to
10 have a better position and a better understanding of, how
11 do we spend that in the best possible way? What are the
12 things we should be spending on? What is our
13 expectations -- our educated expectations on where the
14 future might lie? What are the environmental outcomes?
15 Because these are changing. And, you know, as I -- I
16 thought natural gas was natural gas. And I find out all
17 of a sudden it's not. And we're going to all of a sudden
18 have a lot of product that doesn't have the same methane
19 number and we've been assuming that -- and we don't even
20 know what the minimum is going to be. And we're being
21 told, "Well, just go out and run your buses. Don't worry
22 about it." And the world doesn't work like that.
23 So I guess I would like to use this Board, not
24 just to educate me personally, but to educate me so I can
25 make the decisions. And if I'm going to be asked to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
228
1 direct where spending is going to take place, you know,
2 I'd like to do that because I have a better understanding
3 of more than just the politics or the various sales
4 pitches that we're going to be given.
5 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I think your points
6 are extremely well taken. And I would just like to
7 comment a little bit.
8 I mean I think in a way the world has passed this
9 report by. And we need to do it because it was
10 legislatively required that we do it and we need to get it
11 over with. But it is not the -- it doesn't answer the
12 questions that you are raising, which are very legitimate
13 questions.
14 The thing that gives me comfort is that the Air
15 Resources Board does have the requirement now, the duty to
16 deal with this issue because of AB 32 and because of the
17 low carbon fuel standard mandate. And so we will be
18 required to educate ourselves and to delve into the issues
19 about the alternative fuels and what they can accomplish.
20 We don't have total authority -- we don't have unique
21 authority in this area, I guess I should say. And the
22 Energy Commission definitely has an important role both in
23 terms of assuring that there's adequate supplies of fuels
24 to allow for the state to keep on generating electricity
25 and keep on moving; it also has responsibilities now in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
229
1 the R&D area and funding because of 118. And I think we
2 do want to have input to that process.
3 I think -- I'm not sure if I was the only person
4 who used this term. But I have used the term "neutrality"
5 before, and I'd like to defend it a little bit in the
6 sense that when I've used that term in the past, it's been
7 neutrality in the sense of having a goal or a target that
8 was like an emission standard or, you know, something that
9 was a measurable performance standard. And then you could
10 be neutral about how people -- you know, which fuel or
11 which technology people chose to meet that standard.
12 If the goal is just to sort of equally spend
13 money on all possible alternatives or equally push all
14 possible alternatives, I would agree with you. I don't
15 think that's the right way to go at all. I think our job
16 is to try to project what our needs are going to be in
17 terms of the amount of reductions that we have to see in
18 petroleum use and in carbon in order to meet our air
19 quality and global warming requirements, and then look at
20 what's out there and try to, yes, invest in or otherwise
21 create whatever incentives we can, you know, for the best
22 ones to win.
23 And I'm looking at Professor Sperling, because
24 this is his real area of involvement, at the moment to see
25 if -- I'm getting a head nod. But maybe you'd like to add
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
230
1 something to that as well.
2 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah, let me add first a
3 little reassurance that, you know, with the low carbon
4 fuel standard, this is an amazingly robust, powerful
5 instrument if we, you know, adopt it as it's planned to be
6 adopted, as it's been proposed, because it provides the
7 metric of reducing life cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
8 And to the extent that that's one of the most important --
9 you know, the two most important -- well, I guess the
10 three people think about are oil security, greenhouse
11 gases, and air pollution. But to the extent that fuels
12 meet the greenhouse gas metric, they -- in most cases they
13 also meet the energy security and the air quality goals as
14 well, that they really march up pretty well in almost all
15 cases.
16 So, you know, partly -- a little reassurance,
17 that we really have a policy instrument that really -- for
18 the first time in history really provides a framework, a
19 durable framework, as the language was used here, to
20 accomplish exactly what everyone's concerned about. And
21 it does take away this concern about technology
22 neutrality. Now, that's the first part.
23 The second part is though we do need to think
24 about what more needs to be done. You need to, you
25 know -- but it's more fixing it up around the edges. You
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
231
1 know, are there things that need some extra help? But we
2 do have -- I mean as we follow through the low carbon fuel
3 standard, we've got the most fundamental part of what we
4 need here to move forward. And that should be reassuring
5 to all of us.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: It should be.
7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair?
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Mrs. Riordan?
9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I normally don't do this.
10 But I really would like to be able to vote on this. And
11 I'd --
12 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: You'd like to call it to a
13 halt?
14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah. Well, I'd like to
15 move the resolution that's before us, which is 07-50.
16 SUPERVISOR HILL: Second the motion.
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Fair enough.
18 I think we could continue this conversation all
19 day, those of us who are fuel junkies.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Sorry.
21 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: That's okay.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I do want to say though
24 that I would like to actually duly note Randal Friedman's
25 comment, and even though it's not germane exactly to this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
232
1 report, I hope we are going to be able to get them an
2 answer on their issue in some reasonable time frame. I'm
3 looking in a generic way back at the staff here.
4 But is there something that you all are --
5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Yeah,
6 I can address that comment.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
8 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Mr.
9 Friedman is right. We have had a policy out there for how
10 B-20 is to play. And it is a legal fuel. There is no
11 restriction against its use.
12 The difficulty is is that retrofit manufacturers
13 have not historically warranteed the use of B-20 for
14 after-treatment devices. And we have been working with
15 those manufacturers. And that was part of the policy that
16 we had floated, was to say, you know, it is something that
17 we want to get concurrence on B-20 use on that.
18 And we made some progress. All new
19 certifications are issued pursuant to warrantying on B-20.
20 We also have a lot of research going on right now
21 on biodiesel from both the emissions perspective as well
22 as looking at different feedstocks for biodiesel. So it's
23 something that we recognize that we'll probably need to do
24 specifications to ensure that there's a high quality
25 biodiesel available. And we need to continue working with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
233
1 the vehicle -- the retrofit manufacturers to ensure that
2 they will warranty B-20.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
4 Okay. Well, I'll expect you to continue to have
5 conversations then.
6 And we have a motion and a second.
7 All in favor say aye.
8 (Ayes.)
9 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Any opposed?
10 None. Carries unanimously.
11 Thank you very much for keeping us on track. And
12 thanks for being with us.
13 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Just to be clear. We
14 adopted the two -- that included the modifications?
15 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: With the modifications,
16 yes, we did.
17 We're not yet completely done.
18 We have a legislative update, finally. Mr.
19 Oglesby is waiting patiently.
20 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Chairman Nichols, this
21 is Tom Jennings. I'd like to mention one thing.
22 It may not have been clear during the disclosures
23 of ex parte communications on the harbor craft matter
24 whether those included communications that occurred before
25 the October Board meeting as well as between the October
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
234
1 Board meeting and now. I'm going to send something to the
2 Board members to just get clarification if there are
3 additional disclosures. And I'm mentioning it now so that
4 if you have anything written down, save that so that you
5 could use it in a response.
6 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. I don't
7 believe any of us did. But --
8 SUPERVISOR HILL: At the last meeting we did not
9 disclose --
10 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: That's correct.
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.
12 Well, we'll certainly make sure that people are
13 aware that they need to go back beyond this most recent
14 period. Thank you.
15 Okay. Thanks for waiting. And we're eager to
16 hear what the Legislature did or didn't do.
17 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: I'll be mindful of
18 your time. I know it's been a long day and I appreciate
19 your patience as we go through our annual legislative
20 review.
21 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
22 Presented as follows.)
23 --o0o--
24 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: I'm Rob Oglesby,
25 your Legislative Director. And I'd like to say that,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
235
1 Madam Chairman and members of the Board and Mr. Goldstene,
2 thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
3 The purpose of this briefing is twofold:
4 First, to give the Board a preview of recently
5 enacted bills that create new programs or add new tasks
6 that will come before you for policy decisions and
7 implementations.
8 And, second, to provide the public with a brief
9 review of the significant air quality legislation of 2007.
10 --o0o--
11 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: As you well know,
12 the need to improve air quality and reduce global warming
13 emissions has never been more important. And the level of
14 public interest and concern translates into more action in
15 the Legislature.
16 Overall, there is great interest in moving
17 forward on legislation to reduce traditional smog forming
18 and toxic air pollutants, and now there is growing
19 momentum to reduce emissions that contribute to global
20 warming.
21 This adds a new dimension to the scope of work
22 that the Legislative Office handles. For example, we now
23 have an interest in water supply and delivery, building
24 standards and forests, all because these issues have a
25 direct bearing on global warming emissions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
236
1 --o0o--
2 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: In addition to
3 action on specific bills, the Legislature held 19 special
4 hearings related to air pollution issues. The topics were
5 diverse, but particular attention was devoted to
6 transportation, infrastructure, and global warming.
7 --o0o--
8 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: All of the air
9 quality bills, along with veto and signing messages, and a
10 listing of the special hearings are presented in our
11 annual report.
12 You should have this report before you, and
13 copies are available here for members of the public. And
14 the report can also be accessed online at ARB's website.
15 --o0o--
16 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Now I'll highlight
17 specific bills, budget actions and legislative issues
18 beginning with some of the highlights of the state budget.
19 The state budget and its trailer bills include
20 many conditions that will guide the actions you must take
21 to reduce global warming, administer Proposition 1B funds,
22 and clean up the state's highest polluting school buses.
23 First, I'll address budget actions related to
24 climate change.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
237
1 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: The budget
2 fulfills ARB's immediate need to staff up to meet the
3 challenges imposed by AB 32 during the current fiscal
4 year.
5 ARB received 125 new positions to augment efforts
6 that were already underway. Last year's budget gave us an
7 initial 15 positions dedicated to climate change
8 activities.
9 AR 32 authorizes fees to cover program costs.
10 But until the program is up and running, our activities
11 are supported by appropriations from existing funds.
12 However, one of the Legislature's budget actions
13 is a requirement that the '08-'09 Governor's budget
14 include a long-term funding strategy for the program.
15 Staff is currently looking at options for different
16 funding strategies.
17 The budget also allocated funds to support two
18 positions to staff the AB 32 Technology and Environmental
19 Justice committees, and specifies that those committees
20 are subject to state public notice and open meeting laws.
21 This is consistent with current practice.
22 Not incidentally, the budget also provided $1
23 million to cover litigation expenses related to the
24 state's defense of ARB's landmark regulations establishing
25 greenhouse gas emission limits for passenger vehicles.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
238
1 --o0o--
2 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: In connection with
3 the appropriation for AB 32 implementation, the
4 Legislature imposed restrictions on market-related
5 activities that may be undertaken by Board staff.
6 Most of this was provoked by the ongoing
7 discussion about the role of regulations versus market
8 mechanisms to achieve reductions in global warming
9 emissions.
10 And so the Legislature included language in a
11 budget trailer bill, SB 85, that limits staff work to
12 assessment and evaluation of potential market-based
13 compliance mechanisms, and precludes adoption or
14 implementation of those mechanisms, at least until the ARB
15 has developed and approved a scoping plan and related
16 requirements in AB 32.
17 --o0o--
18 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: SB 85 also added
19 duties for the Secretary of Cal/EPA in her role as the
20 coordinator of greenhouse gas reduction activities by
21 state agencies.
22 Beginning this January, state agencies are
23 directed to annually report to the Secretary on actions
24 they have taken to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction
25 targets. The agencies must report the actual greenhouse
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
239
1 gas emissions reduced as a result of their actions. And
2 the report must also include a list and timetable for
3 adoption of any additional measures needed to meet
4 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
5 Cal/EPA will post that information on the
6 agency's Internet website in the form of a state agency
7 greenhouse gas emission reduction report card.
8 While this bill creates a new greenhouse gas
9 reporting mandate for state agencies, it essentially
10 codifies and provides deadlines for activities practiced
11 already by the Secretary and the Climate Action Team. The
12 provisions in SB 85 are consistent with the goals of the
13 Governor, and go a step beyond by requiring the creation
14 and publication of the report card.
15 --o0o--
16 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Finally, SB 85
17 also includes provisions related to water and climate
18 change.
19 California uses a lot of energy to move water.
20 In fact, about 20 percent of the electrical energy
21 consumed in the state is used to transport water. That
22 provides a real opportunity for greenhouse gas reductions
23 through improvements in energy efficiency and
24 conservation.
25 SB 85 requires the Department of Water Resources
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
240
1 to use reasonable, feasible, and cost-effective efforts to
2 improve energy efficiency and to increase the use of
3 renewable energy related to water operations. And the
4 Department must provide annual progress reports on the
5 status of any contracts for fossil-fuel-generated
6 electricity, efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels,
7 and changes to the portfolio of existing energy contracts.
8 Let me now shift to budget bills related to goods
9 movement.
10 --o0o--
11 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Proposition 1B
12 provides a total of $1 billion for goods movement emission
13 reduction projects subject to appropriation by the
14 Legislature.
15 This year the Legislature appropriated $250
16 million to reduce pollution related to goods movement
17 along California's trade corridors. Budget trailer bill
18 SB 88 establishes a framework for the program. The
19 specific details of the types of project and the project
20 selection process will be spelled out in ARB guidelines
21 that you will consider this January. So I'll just provide
22 a brief overview of the bill and a progress report on the
23 staff's activities to date.
24 The budget trailer bill requires ARB to establish
25 program guidelines and an annual allocation of funds to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
241
1 local agencies like air districts and ports. Key elements
2 of the guidelines are to include a funding application
3 process, competitive project selection criteria, cost
4 effectiveness considerations, and accountability
5 requirements. Local agencies are responsible for
6 proposing and implementing the projects.
7 The legislation directs ARB to maximize the
8 emission reduction benefits and achieve the earliest
9 possible health risk reduction in heavily impacted
10 communities.
11 --o0o--
12 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Projects must
13 achieve emission reductions not required by law or
14 regulation, and be allocated in the four major trade
15 corridors.
16 Projects eligible for funding include: Diesel
17 trucks, locomotives, harbor craft, cargo handling
18 equipment, shore-based electrical power for ships, and
19 electric infrastructure for truck stops and other
20 locations.
21 The Board must consider availability of matching
22 funds from federal, local, and private sources.
23 --o0o--
24 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Staff released a
25 draft implementation concept paper in mid-September. Five
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
242
1 public workshops were held the first two weeks of October.
2 And additional consultation meetings and public workshops
3 will be held beginning late November, with the final
4 guidelines being brought to you in January.
5 For this current fiscal year only, ARB can
6 execute grant agreements directly with ports, railroads,
7 or local air districts to fund up to 25 million in
8 projects. This provision is intended to expedite a
9 portion of the first year's funding and achieve early
10 emission reductions. Staff has been working with local
11 air districts to identity projects best suited for
12 expenditure of that money. Projects recommended for
13 funding will be brought to the Board for approval by June
14 '08.
15 Going forward, ARB is required to approve
16 projects annually.
17 Now let me move on to another budget trailer bill
18 issue that shares a link with the infrastructure bond -
19 school buses.
20 --o0o--
21 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: The budget
22 includes $193 million in Proposition 1B bond funds for the
23 replacement and retrofit of school buses. This builds on
24 over $100 million in state funds that have been
25 appropriated since 2000 for school bus replacement and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
243
1 retrofits. And like goods movement, SB 88 defines the
2 basic fund allocation process. ARB staff plans to present
3 proposed program updates and funding allocations to the
4 Board in early 2008, and have funding available to the
5 implementing agencies in the spring.
6 Proposition 1B funds will replace all pre-1977
7 school buses and provide funds to either replace or
8 retrofit diesel school buses built since 1977. This will
9 allow the 75 oldest diesel buses to be replaced with
10 either a new clean diesel school bus or a clean
11 alternative fuel bus. Then ARB must allocate the
12 remaining funds to the districts based on the number of
13 1977 to '86 school buses they have in their possession.
14 Districts have the discretion to apply their allocations,
15 based on that formula, for replacement or retrofit of
16 buses. And all replaced school buses must be scrapped.
17 --o0o--
18 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: This year's budget
19 also included an appropriation that will continue progress
20 on the hydrogen highway.
21 The last two budget cycles provided $6.5 million
22 each year for state-sponsored hydrogen fueling stations
23 and hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects. This year's
24 budget added a $6 million installment to the cause. Of
25 this, $5 million will be used to support the addition of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
244
1 new stations, while the remainder will fund ARB staff
2 positions.
3 --o0o--
4 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: The Legislature
5 also put forth some big air quality bills that were
6 approved by the Governor in September.
7 --o0o--
8 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: AB 118, which
9 we've talked about much today, by Assembly Speaker Nunez,
10 provides over $80 million a year for two air quality
11 improvement programs administered by the ARB, and over
12 $120 million a year for an alternative fuels and advanced
13 technology program administered by the Energy Commission.
14 The revenues are generated from increases in
15 motor vehicle and other fees and from energy-related fund
16 transfers. These revenues will be subject to
17 appropriation by the Legislature.
18 --o0o--
19 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: AB 118 includes
20 overarching guidelines for the ARB and the Energy
21 Commission to ensure that projects do not adversely impact
22 natural resources, result in emission reductions that can
23 be measured and quantified, and fund projects that are not
24 otherwise required by state or federal law.
25 Additionally, ARB is required to develop
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
245
1 guidelines for both the ARB and the Energy Commission
2 programs to ensure projects do not allow emissions
3 backsliding.
4 --o0o--
5 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Of the $80 million
6 administered by the ARB, about 50 million a year is
7 dedicated to an expansive list of air quality programs.
8 --o0o--
9 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: This slide shows a
10 partial list of eligible projects. So you have quite a
11 menu to choose from.
12 --o0o--
13 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: The second air
14 quality program created by the bill provides about $30
15 million for a vehicle scrap program to be developed by the
16 ARB in consultation with the Bureau of Automotive Repair.
17 The goal of this program is to accelerate the
18 turnover of the state's fleet of aging vehicles. This
19 program would allow vehicle owners to be compensated to
20 scrap high polluting passenger vehicles or light-duty
21 trucks.
22 The program is an important piece of the State
23 Implementation Plan, or SIP. And ARB's recently approved
24 SIP has highlighted the need for retiring an additional
25 60,000 vehicles in the South Coast and San Joaquin air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
246
1 basins annually, which would result in the reduction of
2 6.4 tons per day of smog-forming emissions. To meet this
3 goal, ARB projects that the program would need about $90
4 million annually.
5 And AB 118 is a good down payment and provides 30
6 million per year, which will result in the reduction of
7 about two tons per day of emissions.
8 --o0o--
9 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: The third, and
10 largest, program created by the bill is the $120 million
11 provided for an alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle
12 technology program administered by the Energy Commission.
13 Eligible projects include research, technology,
14 and other market-based programs in the area of advanced
15 vehicle energy efficiency, alternative fuels, lower
16 carbon, and renewable fuels.
17 --o0o--
18 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Let me mention
19 three additional bills that will make a dent in the
20 emissions from passenger vehicles and diesel trucks.
21 --o0o--
22 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: AB 1488 by
23 Assembly Member Mendoza adds light- and medium-duty diesel
24 vehicles to the smog check program and fulfills a
25 commitment in the SIP.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
247
1 Adding diesel passenger vehicles to the smog
2 check program will reduce NOx by a modest .7 tons per day;
3 but, most importantly, the bill establishes an air quality
4 safeguard as automakers introduce increasing numbers of
5 new diesel passenger vehicles in the years ahead.
6 --o0o--
7 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Senator Cogdill's
8 SB 23 requires the San Joaquin Valley Air District to
9 develop a pilot program to replace high-polluting vehicles
10 that fail a smog check with denoted low-emission motor
11 vehicles within the San Joaquin Valley. This bill creates
12 a limited pilot program for 200 vehicle exchanges and
13 requires a report from the district afterwards.
14 --o0o--
15 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Another bill, AB
16 233, by Assembly Member Jones, addresses diesel emissions
17 from heavy-duty diesel trucks. ARB must develop an
18 enforcement plan for existing and planned diesel risk
19 reduction regulations.
20 The bill also raises the minimum fine for
21 violation of ARB's commercial vehicle idling regulations
22 from $100 to $300, and requires DMV to prohibit
23 registration of diesel vehicles which have an outstanding
24 air pollution violation. ARB is currently developing an
25 enforcement plan that you'll hear more about over the next
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
248
1 year.
2 --o0o--
3 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: I'll now turn to a
4 few bills that directly relate to the governance of some
5 local air districts.
6 --o0o--
7 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Senator Machado's
8 SB 719 increases the size of the San Joaquin Valley
9 Unified Air Pollution Control District Governing Board
10 from 11 to 15 members by adding a physician and an expert
11 in public health. Both will be appointed by the Governor.
12 And the bill limits the terms of the Governor's appointees
13 to four years.
14 The bill also adds two city representatives to
15 the Board, and limits the new city representative terms to
16 three years. All current members of the Board remain
17 without term limits.
18 Given the Board's current composition, two new
19 city council members will have to be selected. One member
20 will have to come from a city with a population of under
21 100,000 from the District's central area. And this
22 includes a city within the Madera, Fresno, or Kings
23 counties. The other member must be selected from a city
24 within the northern or southern regions of the District
25 with a population of over 100,000. The only eligible
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
249
1 cities that meet this requirement are Stockton, Modesto,
2 Bakersfield, and Visalia.
3 --o0o--
4 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: There are two more
5 bills that deal with local air district governing boards.
6 SB 886, by Senator Negrete McLeod, adds one seat
7 to the South Coast District Board by creating a seat
8 specific to the City of Los Angeles. That bill also
9 removed term limit provisions for the governing board
10 chairs serving in the South Coast, Sacramento, and Mojave
11 Desert districts.
12 SB 144, by the Senate Local Government Committee,
13 allows Sacramento local governments to nominate alternates
14 for governing board members in the event of their absence
15 from district proceedings.
16 --o0o--
17 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Looking ahead,
18 I'll mention a few high priority air quality issues that
19 we'll be working on during the second year of the session.
20 --o0o--
21 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: First, land use
22 planning plays a key role in climate change mitigation,
23 and interested stakeholders are working hard to develop
24 new guidelines and best practices for local planning
25 efforts. The principle vehicle in this debate is SB 375
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
250
1 by Senator Steinberg.
2 Goods movement will also continue to be an area
3 of focus for the Legislature. The Governor committed to
4 working with Senator Lowenthal to develop a significant
5 source of revenue to mitigate air pollution for goods
6 movement at the ports. SB 974 will likely remain the key
7 legislative vehicle for these actions, or at least
8 discussions.
9 While we gained resources for scrap and authority
10 to add diesel passenger vehicles to the smog check
11 program, another bill that would implement a smog check
12 SIP measure remains pending. That bill, AB 616, by
13 Assembly Member Jones, was held in the Senate
14 Appropriations Committee during the last weeks of the
15 session, but may be advanced this year.
16 This bill requires an annual smog check for
17 vehicles that are 15 model years old or older. Vehicles
18 older than the 1976 model year remain exempt from smog
19 check, as are vehicles that are likely to pass a smog
20 check.
21 In addition, AB 616 raises the low income
22 eligibility criteria for consumers interested in
23 participating in BAR's Repair Assistance Program.
24 If passed in 2008, this bill fulfills the largest
25 smog check component of the SIP. The failure rates for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
251
1 cars older than 15 years are 30 percent, over twice the
2 fleet average failure rate. Testing older vehicles that
3 would most likely fail a smog check before the end of
4 their biennial cycle could cost-effectively result in an
5 estimated emissions benefit of 20.6 tons per day of
6 smog-forming emissions by 2014.
7 And also -- another bill -- implementation of the
8 Speaker's air quality and alternative fuels bill, AB 118,
9 requires additional action to appropriate funds to the
10 program during the next budget cycle. Like proposition
11 1B, implementation of this is likely to include specific
12 direction on how the program should operate.
13 And, finally, Congress has been working to
14 develop climate change legislation and energy policy. The
15 ARB, Cal/EPA, and the Governor's Office are taking an
16 active role to help shape federal legislation in these
17 areas. It is clear that California now has a unique
18 opportunity to influence policy at this critical juncture.
19 --o0o--
20 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: This concludes my
21 presentation. I want to thank you for your attention.
22 And on behalf of the entire Legislative Office, I want to
23 thank the Chairman, Mr. Goldstene, the Executive Office
24 and Program staff for their steadfast support and guidance
25 throughout the year.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
252
1 And if you will indulge me for about ten seconds
2 more, I'd like the members of the Legislative Office staff
3 that are in the room --
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you. I was just
5 about to say I think they're right there. So you can have
6 them be introduced, please.
7 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: -- to stand up so
8 I can introduce them. There are some changes at staff and
9 some new Board members that haven't met them.
10 And here we have Lisa Macumber, Bruce Oulray,
11 Greg Vlasek, and Justin Paddock. And upstairs working
12 tirelessly is one of the most important people of our
13 office, Ollie Awolowo, who helps drive the engine of the
14 office. And in San Francisco today at a special hearing
15 representing the Air Board is Sheila Marsee, the most
16 senior member of our office, testifying at a committee
17 related to toxic air pollutants in an indoor environment.
18 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you very much.
19 Thanks. And congratulations on a really terrific year. I
20 read a number of stories that said this wasn't such an
21 exciting legislative year. From the Air Resources point
22 of view, there were quite a number of bills that we were
23 tracking. I'm not sure the total number, but it was a
24 lot.
25 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: It was over 200.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
253
1 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: And a lot to be analyzed.
2 And not only did the staff do the usual job of, you know,
3 trying to make sure that bad bills didn't go forward and
4 that good bills did, but there were some really pretty
5 tricky ones.
6 So I think we've got a number of issues coming up
7 in the coming year, including taking a higher profile on
8 federal actions relating to climate, which I think
9 inevitably, given the work that the state is doing, we're
10 going to have to be vigilant to protect ourselves and to
11 make sure that bills that do move forward are compatible
12 with what we're designing here under AB 32. We get asked
13 all the time for help and input on that. And so that's
14 going to be a larger area of activity as well.
15 But I have been really gratified since I got to
16 the Air Resources Board that -- I've had a lot of feedback
17 about our legislative operation from members and their
18 staffs, who are not shy about complaining, and the
19 feedback is really very positive.
20 So I just want to congratulate you all and thank
21 you for a good year's work.
22 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OGLESBY: Thank you very
23 much.
24 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
25 Okay. This is not a public comment item and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
254
1 nobody put in cards.
2 We do have a general public comment session
3 though. And I know Tim Carmichael wanted to address the
4 Board.
5 So, Tim, you're the only thing standing between
6 us and adjournment.
7 (Laughter.)
8 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: No pressure.
9 MR. CARMICHAEL. And I wouldn't do this if it
10 wasn't a very important issue.
11 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: I know.
12 MR. CARMICHAEL: I'm commenting on the fact that
13 for the second Board meeting in a row your closed session
14 list of items does not include a critical issue to the
15 environmental community.
16 We submitted a year ago, December 2006, a Public
17 Records Act request regarding the Zero Emission Vehicle
18 Program to this agency. And the fact is over the last
19 decade we are almost always in sync with your Legal
20 Department and in many cases in court on the same side as
21 your Legal Department. But we got documents in the spring
22 that were more likely to come from Vice President Cheney's
23 office in the amount that was redacted from them than
24 we've ever seen from a document coming from this agency.
25 We've had several exchanges, positive, over the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
255
1 spring and summer. In the late summer the First Amendment
2 Project took over or engaged on this because they think
3 this case is so important. It's a matter of principle.
4 It relates to sharing information to verify the automakers
5 are complying with the ZEV program. And their excuse or
6 explanation is it's protected information. We
7 fundamentally disagree with it.
8 But it's important for you to know it's not just
9 about ZEV credits. It's a principle matter for anybody
10 that this agency is going to regulate today or in the
11 future. If they have the ability to not share information
12 to show that they are in compliance with the program, that
13 is not okay.
14 And we've been waiting since August for the staff
15 to respond. And that's my main beef today, is we've been
16 waiting, waiting, waiting. And basically I'm here today
17 to ask you to tell your staff that they need to respond to
18 this latest round of communication, which I'm pretty sure
19 was at the end of August
20 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Have you been advised that
21 there was some policy overriding that you couldn't -- that
22 the information would not be released, or are you just not
23 getting a response at all?
24 MR. CARMICHAEL: The last communication we had
25 with your staff was either in -- I think it was early
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
256
1 October, led us to believe that this Board would have a
2 closed session briefing at the October meeting or at the
3 November meeting. And it hasn't happened.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I was completely
5 unaware of the request. And I'm sorry about that. It has
6 not come to my attention that this issue even existed.
7 I don't know if the staff wants to comment or if
8 we should just direct them to put it before us at the next
9 meeting.
10 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: I can shed a little
11 light on that.
12 We had been working on this request. It has a
13 lot of complicated issues. We expect to provide a full
14 response prior to the December hearing. So I know it's
15 been a long time, but it won't be much longer.
16 SUPERVISOR HILL: Can I make a -- Madam Chair?
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes, please.
18 SUPERVISOR HILL: So your response will then be
19 to the request and not a response -- perhaps it should be
20 shared with the Board in closed session at some point
21 before the response is given to the --
22 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: If the response is not to
23 fully disclose the information that's being asked for, in
24 which case the Coalition would be satisfied -- if the
25 Coalition is not going to be satisfied with the results,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
257
1 then I think we need to be briefed on that in closed
2 session.
3 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yeah. I am not the
4 person directly working on this. But we can get back to
5 you and let you know exactly what's going on and what the
6 status is.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I think you have a
8 direction as to how to handle it, which is either give
9 them what they're asking for or plan on having a meeting
10 with us in December, one or the other.
11 MR. CARMICHAEL: Okay. We understand loud and
12 clear.
13 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
14 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Can I chime in on this
15 one.
16 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Yes.
17 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I know a little about
18 this.
19 And, you know, I agree -- I mean I know there's a
20 concern that there's some legal principles at stake. But
21 I do think that it is important to make the information
22 available in some form, you know, maybe in a more
23 aggregate form that will, you know, meet some legal
24 concerns to the extent that they, you know, are upheld.
25 But this is really important to understand -- for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
258
1 anyone on the outside to be able to interpret the ZEV
2 rules and what they really mean and, you know -- and the
3 design of it.
4 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Absolutely.
5 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So I do feel that this is
6 an important issue.
7 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, I'm aware that we do
8 receive confidential information and that we have
9 procedures for protecting that information. But there's
10 also some very stringent state laws about what can be kept
11 confidential.
12 And I appreciate the staff is taking their time
13 and reviewing it thoroughly. But I think we need to give
14 you some sense of direction here.
15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just chime in
16 also. I think this is on the issue of accounting and
17 credits, which is very different from technology and costs
18 and that information. So I have felt all along that --
19 well, I would lean on the side of disclosure.
20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think
21 at the May Board meeting we got that message very, very
22 clearly from the Board. But the problem is is that it is
23 this very complicated issue of credits and ownership, and
24 it's kind of -- I guess the analog is, you know, having to
25 disclosure your bank account to everybody, that kind of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
259
1 thing. So that's what I think is -- it's new and
2 different and that's what's making it a tough issue.
3 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Well, and, frankly, what we
4 may learn from this is that there are problems with the
5 system as it currently exists. And if we know that,
6 that's an important thing to consider moving forward.
7 So I really appreciate the fact that the staff
8 has -- I've never known there to be an instance of, you
9 know, deliberately trying to not disclose data here. I
10 don't think that's a problem. But we just have to find a
11 way that we can get a decision made.
12 MR. CARMICHAEL: And I want to make sure. I was
13 not suggesting that was the case. But we are very
14 frustrated by the long time without a response.
15 So I appreciate the Board's responses very much.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON NICHOLS: Thank you.
18 I don't see any more commenters in the audience.
19 And therefore I think I hear a unanimous vote for
20 adjournment. Thanks.
21 Thank you, everybody.
22 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board
23 adjourned at 4:08 p.m.)
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
260
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand
3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered
4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me,
7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the
8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into
9 typewriting.
10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any
12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
14 this 29th day of November, 2007.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR
24 Certified Shorthand Reporter
25 License No. 12277
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345